Dynamic Subspace

Tag: discussion

  • Some Notes for the Empowering Faculty with AI Roundtable Discussion Today

    an anthropomorphic cat professor wearing a shirt, tie, suspenders, and pants is standing in the middle of a vintage computing room lined with minicomputers and a chalkboard is in the background on the wall
    Image created with Stable Diffusion.

    I collected the following notes, resources, and readings to share during today’s Empowering Faculty with AI roundtable discussion organized by City Tech’s Academic Technologies and Online Learning (AtoL).

    These resources are divided into these sections: Writing and Editing, Research and Experimentation, Teaching, and Readings for Faculty.

    I tend not to trust a computer that I can’t throw out the window, so I only use local Generative AI models that I can run on my desktop workstation or Lenovo ThinkPad P1 Gen 4 laptop. My primary interests are in text generation and image generation, which I have documented over the past three years here on DynamicSubspace.net.

    Writing and Editing

    • I used Generative AI to edit my writing and create the cover image for Yet Another Science Fiction Textbook (YASFT) OER that I published on my website in Feb. 2024. I included an explanation of my workflow in the front matter of the textbook.

    Research and Experimentation

    Teaching

    Assigned Readings in Professional and Technical Writing Classes

    Introduction to Language and Technology, ENG1710

    Introduction to Professional and Technical Writing, ENG2700

    • Reeves, Carol and J. J. Sylvia IV. “Generative AI in  Technical Communication: A Review of Research  from 2023 to 2024.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, 2024, pp. 439-462, https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816241260043.

    My AI Use Policy

    There’s no doubt (at least in my mind) that the current state of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative AI is nothing short of incredible. There are certain tasks AI is good at, there are other tasks AI is not good at, and in all tasks, there is a greater than zero chance that the AI fails at its task horribly and potentially catastrophically. There are legal and ethical considerations, especially for those beginning careers as professional writers and communicators. So, where does AI fit into education, and more specifically, our class? The goals of education include giving students unique experiences for learning, research, and collaboration, as well as opportunities to demonstrate learning, insight, and growth through exams, papers, and projects. Undertaking higher education, changes your brain in deep and important ways that enable you to begin a professional career as a knowledgeable problem solver who is also capable of continuing as a life-long learner. AI’s entrance introduces a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be used as a tool to support your work and learning, but it can also be used egregiously to plagiarize and violate the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy. To avoid any misconceptions or misunderstandings, and to support your best learning experience in our class, you may not use AI at all in our class–including email, summarizing, ideation, discussion, or writing–unless the exercise or assignment explicitly states that you may. I am instituting this policy, because I want you to face the challenge of the class using your human abilities, skills, and talents. It’s only through those challenges will you grow and develop into a professional who can do more and find greater success than those who recklessly rely on AI technologies to do their thinking and work. Of course, violations of this policy are simply violations of the Academic Integrity Policy (under definitions 1.1 Cheating, 1.2 Plagiarism, and 1.3 Obtaining Unfair Advantage), which may result in failure and referral to the college.

    Alexander Chee’s Plea on Bluesky

    Alexander Chee, writer and Dartmouth College professor, writes on Bluesky: "This will sound weird but love yourself enough to write your own term papers. Having a LLM or another person writing your papers feels like a victor but it is just your own defeat, you felled by your own contempt for your future and anyone who believes in you."

    Alexander Chee, writer and Dartmouth College professor, shares on Bluesky: “This will sound weird but love yourself enough to write your own term papers. Having a LLM or another person writing your papers feels like a victor but it is just your own defeat, you felled by your own contempt for your future and anyone who believes in you.”

    Readings for Faculty

    I’ve recently been experimenting with so-called reasoning LLM models. For the synopses below, I gave my reading notes to a 6.0bpw quant of DeepSeek’s R1 Distill of LLaMA 70b LLM asking it to turn my telegraphic points into a brief paragraph of prose. Giving the model the “<thinking>” tag before the model’s response engaging the reasoning capability, which tends to provide better results and instruction following. The information that went into the summaries are based on my notes, so any errors or misunderstandings are mine.

    • Werse, Nicholas R. “What Will Be Lost? Critical Reflections on ChatGPT, Artificial Intelligence, and the Value of Writing Instruction.” Double Helix, vol. 11, 2023, https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/double-helix/v11/werse.pdf.
      • Werse examines the implications of ChatGPT—a highly advanced text-generating AI developed by OpenAI—on the future of writing instruction in higher education. He argues that while ChatGPT can mimic human writing and even assist in research and writing processes, over-reliance on this technology risks undermining the critical thinking and deep understanding that writing fosters. He highlights that writing is not just a practical skill but a cognitive process that externalizes thought (citing Kellogg’s The Psychology of Writing–see below), allowing writers to explore connections, organize ideas, and reflect deeply on a topic. Werse acknowledges the benefits of AI as a tool but warns that outsourcing writing to AI may shortchange students of the educational value of engaging in the iterative writing process. He also discusses the broader societal implications, such as how AI could reshape the role of writing in professional contexts, potentially shifting its value from career preparation to personal enrichment. Werse calls for educators to rethink how they teach writing in an AI-driven world, balancing the practical benefits of technology with the enduring importance of writing as a means of learning and critical engagement.
    • Kellogg, Ronald T. The Psychology of Writing. Oxford UP, 1994.
      • I’ve only just started this book (it’s available to borrow on archive.org here), but I’ve received Kellogg’s thesis about how writing is a cognition supporting technology and activity through many other readings and lessons (though, not always citing Kellogg–it’s more like an established axiom now). Nevertheless, I believe returning to this text is important for building an argument to our students about the importance of doing their own writing for their own thinking and cognitive development.
    • Jamieson, Sandra. “The AI ‘Crisis’ and a (Re)turn to Pedagogy.” Composition Studies, vol. 50, no. 3, 2022, pp. 153-157.
      • Jamieson critiques the panic surrounding AI’s impact on academia, particularly its perceived threat to the college essay and higher education. She argues that while AI tools like ChatGPT, QuillBot, and ParagraphAI are powerful technologies capable of generating sophisticated text, they are not a crisis but an opportunity to refocus on teaching writing. She highlights that composition studies has historically responded to externally defined crises, such as concerns over literacy, cheating, and plagiarism, by adapting pedagogical practices. Jamieson emphasizes that AI is simply another tool, akin to computers or calculators, that can be integrated into teaching. She suggests using AI as a brainstorming or collaborative tool to enhance student learning, rather than viewing it as a threat to be policed. This approach aligns with broader pedagogical values, encouraging educators to trust students and teach them to use AI ethically and effectively. Jamieson also addresses labor issues within academia, critiquing the exploitation of contingent faculty and the mistrust embedded in surveillance technologies. She advocates for a “re-turn” to foundational teaching methods, emphasizing the process of writing—revision, invention, and critical thinking—as a way to engage students deeply with their work. Jamieson sees AI as an opportunity to strengthen writing education rather than undermine it.
    • Carver, Joseph and Samba Bah. “Rehumanizing Higher Education: Fostering Humanity in the Era of Machine Learning.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20644.
      • Carver and Bah examine the challenges and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, within higher education. They highlight the polarized attitudes toward AI, ranging from optimism about its potential to enhance research and efficiency to concerns about its impact on critical thinking and human values. They draw parallels to the “Science Wars” of the 1990s, which questioned the validity of soft sciences, and note the lack of consensus on AI policies among academics. The article emphasizes the historical development of AI, from Alan Turing’s foundational work to modern advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning, which have enabled AI to mimic human reasoning and solve complex problems like protein folding. However, the authors stress the “alignment problem,” a term referring to AI’s inability to fully understand and align with human values, leading to biased outcomes in areas such as hiring and criminal justice. They argue that higher education has a unique role in shaping the future of AI, not only through research and integration of AI tools but also by rehumanizing education. They advocate for a unified response to AI, one that prioritizes human values and addresses the existential implications of AI on education’s traditional goals, such as critical thinking and knowledge creation. Drawing on philosophical traditions like Ubuntu, an African philosophy emphasizing interconnectedness and community, the authors call for a reimagined higher education system that centers humanity, empathy, and collaboration. They conclude by urging educators to ensure that AI enhances rather than diminishes human potential.
    • Liu, Larry. “AI and the Crisis of Legitimacy in Higher Education.” American Journal of STEM Education: Issues and Perspectives, vol. 4, 2024, pp. 16-26, https://www.ojed.org/STEM/article/view/7572.
      • Liu explores how the rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence is challenging the legitimacy of higher education, defined as society’s belief in the necessity of college credentials for secure, middle-class jobs and social mobility. AI’s ability to perform tasks like essay writing, exam-taking, and personalized learning threatens to disrupt traditional educational roles, with some educators even leaving the profession due to its impact. While AI could potentially boost college legitimacy by displacing jobs and increasing demand for credentials, it also poses risks, such as overreliance on AI making students less engaged learners. The article identifies three key challenges: AI’s unique capabilities, government and employer shifts toward skills-based hiring over degree requirements, and the “enrollment cliff” caused by declining birth rates. Using sociological frameworks, Liu applies Jürgen Habermas’s concept of legitimation crisis, where the state’s ability to balance economic growth and welfare is strained, to argue that higher education’s role in maintaining capitalist legitimacy is at risk. Additionally, Randall Collins’s credential inflation theory suggests that the surplus of college graduates devalues degrees, creating social hierarchies rather than preparing workers for the labor market. Liu concludes that educators should embrace AI’s benefits while addressing its broader societal impacts, such as declining enrollment and political distrust in higher education.
    • Fritts, Megan. “A Matter of Words: What Can University AI Committees Actually Do?” The Point Magazine, 12 May 2025, https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/a-matter-of-words/.
      • Fritts discusses the profound challenges artificial intelligence (AI) poses to higher education, particularly in the humanities, as universities across the U.S. grapple with how to respond to the technology’s transformative impact. Fritts, a philosophy professor, details her experiences on AI response committees at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, where debates focus on issues like AI detectors’ accuracy, whether tools like Grammarly should be banned, and the ethical implications of students using AI for academic work. Central to these discussions is the tension between viewing AI as a tool for equity or efficiency and as a threat to human-centered education. She argues that the heart of the crisis lies in the humanities’ core mission: if the goal is to produce artifacts like essays or arguments, AI could soon replace human efforts. However, if the focus shifts to forming human persons through language and self-expression, AI becomes an existential threat by undermining the uniquely human connection between thought, language, and identity. Drawing on a philosopher like Ludwig Wittgenstein or the political theorist Alasdair MacIntyre, Fritts emphasizes that language is not just a tool but a formative part of human life, and relying on AI for communication risks eroding this essential aspect of humanity. She calls for radical policies to preserve the humanities by banning AI in classrooms and reclaiming the indispensability of human expression.
    • Luckin, Rosemary, Mutlu Cukurova, Carmel Kent, and Benedict du Boulay. “Empowering Educators to be AI-Ready.” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100076.
      • Luckin et al. focus on the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education and emphasize the need for educators to become “AI-Ready.” AI is defined as the capacity of machines to simulate intelligent behavior, with applications ranging from learner-facing tools that adapt to individual needs to educator-facing systems that assist with tasks like grading and institutional support tools for resource management. Despite AI’s potential, its adoption in education lags behind other sectors due to challenges like ethical concerns, data limitations, and the complexity of educational ecosystems. The concept of AI Readiness involves understanding AI’s capabilities and limitations, particularly its lack of human-like qualities such as social intelligence and metacognition. The authors introduce the EThICAL AI Readiness Framework, a seven-step process (Excite, Tailor, Identify, Collect, Apply, Learn, Iterate) to guide educators and administrators in identifying challenges, collecting and analyzing data, and applying AI ethically. Case studies, such as one involving Arizona State University, demonstrate how this framework helps educators assess student learning behaviors and develop targeted interventions. The article concludes by stressing the importance of balancing AI’s strengths with human expertise to enhance education effectively.
    • Ellerton, Wendy. “The Human and Machine: OpenAI, ChatGPT, Quillbox, Grammarly, Google, Google Docs, & humans.” Visible Language, vol. 57, no. 1, Apr. 2023, pp. 38-52, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/893661.
      • Ellerton reflects on the evolving relationship between humans and technology, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of generative AI. Ellerton, a design educator, explores how tools like ChatGPT, Grammarly, and Quillbot are reshaping writing and communication, blending personal narrative with critical analysis. She discusses her experimentation with AI, highlighting both its potential to enhance creativity and collaboration and its limitations, such as the risk of misinformation and ethical concerns like authorship and bias. Using autoethnography, a research method that combines personal experience with cultural critique, she examines her own interactions with AI, revealing the tensions between human qualities like metacognition and emotional intelligence and the efficiency of machines. She advocates for a balanced approach, emphasizing the need to embrace human values and critical thinking while leveraging AI’s capabilities.
    • Miller, Robin Elizabeth. “Pandora’s Can of Worms: A Year of Generative AI in Higher Education.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 21-34, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2024.a916988.
      • Miller considers the impact of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing Chat on higher education since their rapid introduction in late 2022. She discusses the varied reactions among educators, from alarm to cautious enthusiasm, and highlights the challenges of regulating and understanding these tools while students and colleagues simultaneously experiment with them. The piece uses Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory to frame the adoption process, categorizing users into groups like early adopters and laggards, and outlines the five stages of adoption: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Miller also examines the spectrum of acceptable uses for AI, dividing them into “green light” tasks (low-resistance, repetitive work), “yellow light” tasks (cautious experimentation with expertise-related activities), and “red light” tasks (high-resistance creative or original work). The article raises ethical concerns, such as the potential for misinformation, copyright infringement, and depersonalization of communication, while also noting the practical benefits of AI as a tool for efficiency and learning. She emphasizes the ongoing challenges educators face in navigating the ethical, technical, and policy implications of generative AI, likening its introduction to opening Pandora’s Box, where hope remains the last and most enduring consequence.
    • Norris, Christopher. “Poetry, Philosophy, and Smart AI.” SubStance, vol. 53, no. 1, 2024, pp. 60-76, https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.2024.a924142.
      • Norris examines the debates surrounding AI’s role in poetry and creativity, drawing on his expertise in poetry, philosophy, and literary theory. He questions whether AI can genuinely think or create, arguing that AI-generated poetry is either a product of human creativity or a simulation. Norris engages with philosophical arguments, such as John Searle’s “Chinese Room” thought experiment, which posits that AI lacks consciousness and intentionality, rendering its outputs mere mechanical processes. He also considers the “extended mind” thesis, suggesting that tools like AI are extensions of human cognition, complicating distinctions between human and machine creativity. Norris discusses William Empson’s work on poetic ambiguity, linking it to the challenge of determining whether AI can capture the intentional depth of human poetry. The article concludes that while AI can mimic poetic forms, its impact on poetry will depend on its role as a tool to enhance rather than replace human creativity, emphasizing the enduring importance of judgment and intentional creativity in poetic endeavors.
    • Laurent, Dubreuil. Humanities in the Time of AI. University of Minnesota Press, 2025, https://muse.jhu.edu/book/129366.
      • Dubreuil’s Humanities in the Time of AI is the most challenging reading (to me) on this list. He presents a paradoxical optimism about the potential of AI to revitalize the humanities. He argues that while AI can perform tasks traditionally associated with humanistic research, such as summarizing, describing, or translating, these are not the ultimate goals of the humanities. Instead, he advocates for a maximalist understanding of scholarship, emphasizing creation, transformative signification, and the exploration of the unsaid. He distinguishes between invention, which reorganizes existing knowledge, and creation (poiēsis), which emerges from contradictions and impossibilities, suggesting the latter as the true domain of the humanities. Dubreuil critiques both conservative and progressive approaches to humanistic inquiry, arguing that the humanities must engage in a dialogical endeavor that considers the past, present, and future without reducing scholarship to tradition or moral indictment of historical eras. He also explores the relationship between AI and human cognition, noting that AI is not a separate entity but an extension of human thought, trained on vast datasets of human artifacts. Dubreuil emphasizes that while AI can simulate creativity, it lacks true interpretive and creative capacities, which remain the province of the humanities. He calls for a redefinition of the humanities that embraces their role in interpreting and creating meaning, positioning them as a counter to the standardized, algorithmic thinking of AI. Dubreuil critiques the superficial dismissal of Plato’s concerns about writing in the Phaedrus, arguing that these concerns resonate with contemporary debates about AI’s impact on cognition and memory. He challenges the notion that AI is merely a neutral tool, highlighting its potential to reshape human thought and creativity. Dubreuil also examines the ethical dimensions of AI, cautioning against the reduction of ethics to utilitarian decision-making and emphasizing the importance of critical interpretation over descriptive scholarship. He advocates for a maximalist vision of the humanities, one that embraces complexity, creativity, and the unique capacities of humanistic inquiry in the face of technological advancements. Dubreuil sees AI as both a challenge and an opportunity to redefine the humanities’ role in fostering critical thinking, interpretive depth, and intellectual exploration.

  • BMCC Forum on Generated Text and the Future of College Writing Yesterday Was a Great Success

    Yesterday, about twenty faculty and students gathered in BMCC’s Fiterman Hall room 1304 to discuss the effects of Generative AI on college writing, higher education, and society-in-general for the Spring 2025 Robert Lapides Faculty Forum. I was honored to have been invited to participate.

    From left to right, Lisa Sarti, Professor of Italian Studies at BMCC; me; and Carlos Hernandez, Professor of English at BMCC and SF writer started the discussion, but soon almost everyone in attendance had something to contribute: observations, personal experiences, and questions.

    For my part in the conversation, I came at the issue from four vectors: as a science fiction scholar, a writing instructor, a technical communication instructor, and computer hobbyist. My desire to learn how Generative AI works and to pass on what I have learned to my students is informed by my adherence to William Gibson’s axiom, “the street finds its own use for things,” which is coupled with Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” and claiming the tools of technology for our own purposes to build the network, community, and world that we want.

    While it was scheduled for only two hours, we ran over by 20 minutes–something the organizers said hadn’t happened before. I think that if time hadn’t been called, we might still be there into the wee hours.

    The BMCC students in attendance demonstrated their engagement and concern about these technologies in the classroom and their everyday lives.

    I closed my comments in response to a question about how we might use Generative AI to fight back against authoritarianism. I offered an assemblage of open source generative AI, a bit of Harlan Ellison’s “‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman” (1965), and Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game (1985).

    Besides the substance of the discussion, I think meeting colleagues at BMCC might have opened doors for further work on AI matters and the annual City Tech Science Fiction Symposium. Stay tuned!

  • Forum on Generated Text and the Future of College Writing at BMCC, April 2, 2-4pm

    decorative flyer, text in body

    I’ll be speaking on a discussion panel about Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, and College Writing at Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY (BMCC), Fiterman Hall 1304 on Wednesday, April 2 from 2-4 PM. If you’re free, it would be great if you could join us for what I think will be a lively in-person conversation. Details are below and the event flyer is posted above and below.

    The Spring 2025 Robert Lapides Faculty Forum

    Wednesday April 2 Fiterman Hall 1304 (245 Greenwich St.) 2-4 pm

    A Step Toward the Unified Macro-Mind or a Cybernetic Lawnmower in the Groves of Academia? :
    Generated Text and the Future of College Writing

    Recently, Large Language Models and generated texts have sent shockwaves through the academic community. Do they represent the initial glimmerings on a new horizon of transhuman creativity or are they, in Noam Chomsky’s phrase, merely “glorified autofill,” a “high-tech plagiarism” based on a self-cannibalizing database? Where old-fashioned plagiarism now seems like a relatively simple matter of ethics and originality, Artificial Intelligence and the looming specter of the Literary Chatbot bring a whole host of more tangled issues of Perception, Knowledge, Autonomy, and Class Warfare into the classroom.

    Many believe the neural net models of cognition don’t begin to pierce the mystery of the mind—Roger Penrose and others remain unconvinced that human thinking can be reduced meat-puppet computation, while John Searle’s Chinese Room parable undermines the idea that mere symbol-juggling can ever result in emergent consciousness. Still, techno-optimists believe we are at the precipice of an age of cyborg enhancements in which human potential will be radically expanded and the primate mind will be uploaded into Cloud-dwelling immortality.

    We will be discussing these issues and many others in an open symposium with CUNY professors Jason Ellis, Carlos Hernandez, Lisa Sarti, and Shane Snipes. We encourage our colleagues to come to voice their concerns and hopes on this increasingly crucial and urgent matter.

    pictures of four scholars speaking at the event

    The event is named in memory of Robert Lapides, a past English department professor at BMCC. Reading his obituary, you get the sense that he did good work that saved voices from the past from erasure, and created space for voices in the present to carry the work forward.

    “Robert Lapides, professor emeritus in the English Department, husband of Professor Diane Dowling, died on January 1, 2021. At BMCC for over 40 years, Professor Lapides will be remembered for his passion, his life-long fight for social, economic, and racial justice, and his commitment to building communities where differences can be expressed. Never afraid to speak up or ask questions, he was genuinely interested in his students and colleagues. His intense curiosity about people, places, politics, history, literature, psychology, religion–about what it means to be human–informed all his efforts. He encouraged his students to embrace their humanity, including the parts of themselves they felt they needed to hide, building their courage to write honestly. His legacy can be found in his influence on the many students and colleagues he worked with, the online communities he created, in his faculty magazine Hudson River, and for editing Lodz Ghetto, collected writings left behind by Jews confined to the Lodz Ghetto in WWII. Until the end, he was working on his book about the creative development of Charles Dickens, which will be published posthumously” (from Ellen Moody’s Under the Sign of Sylvia blog, 25 Mar. 2021).

  • Science Fiction, LMC3214: New Wave Lecture and Three Story Discussion

    Today’s class was like an exclamation point in two ways. First, there was the long stroke of lecture. I lectured on the origins of the New Wave in New Worlds, Judith Merril’s England Swings SF, and Harlan Ellison’s Dangerous Visions. I gave my students background on semiotics, modernity/postmodernity, and modernism/postmodernism to anchor the New Wave (alas, arguing for a grand narrative while saying there ain’t such a thing). I talked more in-depth about the writers whose work we had read for today: J.G. Ballard, Harlan Ellison, and Samuel R. Delany. It was a long lecture, but it was material that I felt was important. Then, the hard dot fell after the pen raised from that long stroke! Students loved, “Repent Harlequin, Said the Ticktockman.” Other students hated it. Students loved, “The Cage of Sand.” Other students hated it. We had a knock-down drag out discussion. It was a beautiful conclusion to a week of lectures, readings, and film viewings. Next week, we continue the New Wave. I will talk about other New Wave writers and we will watch the original Star Trek episode, “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Looking further ahead next week, we will discuss Feminist SF and watch James Cameron’s Aliens (1986).

  • Notes from the State of Black Science Fiction Film Festival 2013

    Audience and panelists at the State of Black SF Film Festival.
    Audience and panelists at the State of Black SF Film Festival.

    Tonight, it was standing room only in Georgia Tech’s Hall Building Room 102 for the 2013 State of Black Science Fiction Film Festival. Co-presented by the School of Literature, Media, and Communication and the State of Black Science Fiction Collective, it presented a number of cutting edge and independent films and opened conversation between filmmakers, writers, and critics. Professor Lisa Yaszek introduced the festival and Georgia Tech’s long history with science fiction via her predecessor Bud Foote, and Milton Davis and Balogun Ojetade organized the festival, introduced the films, and lead the post-screening panel discussion.

    All of the films were exceptionally great! I have listed the films shown below with links to the video or more information where available.

    Clayton Ziga’s “I am Designer” imagines a world where adoptive children can be surgically and technologically redesigned to meet the wants of their adoptive parents.

    Matthew Savage’s dieselpunk, noirish short film “Reign of Death,” pits a gumshoe against an allegedly murderous robot. I really liked the integration of the CGI robot with the Sin City-esque visual feel of the moving picture.

    Tommy Bottoms showed off his webseries, “Eternal.” It was billed as “True Blood meets The Wire,” and it combines the gritty reality of life with action and humor. In the episodes that we saw, I have to say that my favorite line of the whole night came when the main character Josh Davis, not understanding how the vampires around him seemingly vanish in thin air, exclaims, “Fucking magic tricks!”

    We caught a glimpse of Teresa Dowell-Vest’s “Genesis: New American Superheroes,” which is about a couple who survived the Tuskeegee Experiment, went on to become scientists, and bestow science-derived gifts to their their five children: Tage/Power of Earth, Xavier/Power of Water, Xander/Power of Fire, Jordan/Power of Wind, and Quincey/Power of Technology and Knowledge.

    Bree Newsome treated the audience to her Southern tale of horror titled, “Wake.” A woman gets more than she bargains for when she conjures a man to marry after ridding herself of her controlling father. Besides being creepy, disturbing, and occasionally funny, I enjoyed its playful use of language.

    Balogun Ojetade showed the audience an excerpt from the larger steamfunk project titled, “Rite of Passage: Initiation.” In the scene, Harriet Tubman challenges her student Dorthy to a martial arts contest.

    Finally, Donnie Leapheart presented two episodes of his action-packed webseries Osiris. This SF thriller is about a seemingly immortal man fighting back against corporate interests who want to commoditize and sell his ability to live forever. The two episodes that we saw were slick and clever. I was also impressed by the high production value of this series made for the web.

    After the screening, Davis and Ojetade lead a panel discussion with Teresa Dowell-Vest, Donnie Leapheart, Tommy Bottoms, Bree Newsome, and Steve Barnes (writer, critic, and martial artist). What follows are my notes and paraphrasing from the conversation.

    Question: What makes something black SF?

    Bottoms: It can be the production side, actors, or story. However, anyone should be able to enjoy these films, not necessarily an exclusive black audience.

    Dowell-Vest: She aims to create a body of work that transcends race and is enjoyable to a broad audience.

    Leapheart: He embraces the idea of black SF, because he knows that there are black nerds, but they don’t get represented. Since SF is the biggest grossing genre for a broad audience, why are not more black filmmakers putting their voice out there in SF to reach that audience?

    Barnes: He breaks down the definitions of SF, fantasy, and horror to help develop the terminology of the discussion. Broadly speaking, all fiction is fantasy, because fiction is not real. However, what we think of as fantasy involves a world that is unlike our own and operates by a set of rules significantly different than our own. SF is a subset of fantasy that must follow the rules of science, but it can be allowed to break one rule–such as time travel–to produce stories around: what if, if only, and if this goes on. Horror is another subset of fantasy in which the dominant mode is fear and it generates dread in the audience. There are many different kinds of horror: SF horror, fantasy horror, psychological horror, etc.

    Question: How and why are black people portrayed negatively in the media?

    Newsome: Where do we start!?

    Bottoms: Right now, our culture embraces this as entertainment. At least in the past with Blaxploitation, social consciousness and positive endings were an integral part of the early wave of these films.

    Newsome: We are fighting and combating stereotypes. Media is not separate from the social world.

    Barnes: Negative portrayals are likely not something done with conscious intent, but are the way people actually thought. Put another way, they are not trying to make a group look negative. Instead, they are simply presenting their internalized beliefs. Furthermore, it has a lot to do with one group in a superior position defining itself against others.

    Leapheart: We can blame the media, whites, etc., but if you look online there are many negative videos produced by blacks with loads of views and other positive videos with very few views. Is art imitating life or life imitating art? Should we give people what they want (or think that they want), or do we keep doing our own thing?

    Dowell-Vest: She is concerned about the declining representation on television. At one point, we had a menu of options (e.g., Cosby, A Different World, In Living Color, etc.), but now it seems to be all on the shoulders of the character Olivia Pope in the show Scandal. If she were played by a white woman, would we be having this conversation? She sees a cycle of fight-struggle-complacency, and she worries that we are now in a period of complacency. True art and storytelling come from bucking the status quo.

    Barnes: In the history of network television, there have only been four successful black-starring hour-long dramas. This is why so much rides on Olivia Pope and Scandal. He also mentioned the TV series Deception.

    Newsome: Waits for a time when we don’t have to rely on only one show to represent all black people.

    Question: What is the future of black film (while considering Quintin Tarantino’s Django Unchained)?

    Bottoms: Don’t tell someone that they can’t make a film. If you think that you can do it better, then you go out and make it. He enjoyed Django Unchained despite the problems that some people had with its language–how else could you do it, he asked?

    Barnes: Loved Django Unchained. He went to see it with one of Louis Farrakhan’s body guards, who laughed his ass off. Only five directors could have pulled off this film, and four didn’t want to do it. Taratino grew up around black people, and he represented what he knew from his perspective. Anyone can write about others’ experiences, and we have a right to disagree with their perspective. A good thing about Django Unchained is that it proved that a movie with central black characters can sell to an international audience. He asked the audience a pointed question: When was the last time that you saw a film with slaves? Amistad? No, it debated their freedom. Beloved? They were ex-slaves. This is the third rail of cinema, and Taratino is crazy enough to go there and he made people laugh doing it. The film is not a perfect thing, but it is a good thing.

    Dowell-Vest: She is from Virginia, and for her, Nat Turner is very real history. There is something significant about that moment when the oppressed have their time or their revenge. It can be soul serving or spiritually serving. She felt that Taratino had given her what she needed.

    Newsome: You can’t say he can’t make something because of his race, because then, you say that I can’t make a kind of film due to my race.

    Leapheart: Concerned that despite the high a film like this might give us now, it is likely not the beginning of a new wave. Instead, its momentum will dissipate.

    Barnes: Yet, a film like this sets the ground for the future: experience, learning, jobs. It is up to you guys (the filmmakers on the panel) to make the future.

    Bottoms: There is this thing that I’ve heard about called the Internet, and it gives us new options, choices, and a chance for change. However, change takes time.

    Unfortunately, at that point, we had to close it down for the evening. This was an exciting event that reminded me it was very good to be back in Atlanta at Georgia Tech.

    The conversation continues at the State of Black Science Fiction group on Facebook here. See you there!

    Update: Dead video links removed on 9 Nov. 2023.