Technology as Cure – Representations of Disability in Science Fiction (CFP)

This call for papers has nothing to do with me organisationally but I repost it here for your interest and imagination:

CFP: Technology as Cure – Representations of Disability in Science Fiction

Call for Papers

Representations of Disability in Science Fiction (essay collection; abstracts due Nov. 18/11)

Contributions are invited for an essay collection on the representations of disability and the disabled body in science fiction. Technology is often characterized as a cure for the disabled body – one that either elides or exacerbates corporeal difference. From block buster films and televised space operas to cyberpunk and hard SF, disabled bodies are often modified and supported by technological interventions. How are dis/ability, medical “breakthroughs,” (bio) technologies, and the body theorized, materialized, and politicized in science fiction? This collection is particularly interested in the ways dis/abled bodies challenge normative discourses of ability, generate novel spaces of embodiment, and proliferate new understandings of human being.

Contributions are welcomed from both academic- and arts-based researchers and practitioners from a wide range of critical perspectives: literary studies, disability studies, feminist studies, science and technology studies, critical theory, race studies, queer studies, media studies, film studies, Aboriginal studies, cultural studies, and rhetoric studies. Papers may deal with the representation of disability in any form of popular genre SF: film, television, and print (including all SF subgenres i.e.: feminist SF, post-cyberpunk, hard SF, steampunk, etc.). All possible topics related to the representation of disability and disabled persons in SF are welcome: dis/ability, illness, technology as cure, prosthesis, diseased bodies/contagion, care of the self, alterations to the body, corporeal boundaries, environmental modifications, medical care, and alternative constructions of being.

Send a 300- to 500-word abstract, working title, and a brief bio, by email in a Word attachment, to kathryn@academiceditingcanada.ca before or on November 18, 2011. Inquiries are also welcome. Final papers should range in length from 5000-8000 words About the editor: Kathryn Allan received her PhD in English Literature from McMaster University (2010) studying feminist post-cyberpunk SF and theories of the vulnerable body. She currently is an independent SF scholar, working as a freelance writer and (academic) editor. http://www.academiceditingcanada.ca/blog/item/72-cfp

Swords, Sorcery, Sandals and Space: The Fantastika and the Classical World. A Science Fiction Foundation Conference (CFP)

I'm proud to be able to say I'm part of the Science Fiction Foundation team putting together a conference in 2013 which will combine science fiction and classics. The call for papers was issued today and here it is:

Swords, Sorcery, Sandals and Space: 

The Fantastika and the Classical World. 

A Science Fiction Foundation Conference

29 June – 1 July 2013

At The Foresight Centre, University of Liverpool

Guests of Honour: Edith Hall, Nick Lowe, and Catherynne M. Valente

Call for papers

The culture of the Classical world continues to shape that of the modern West. Those studying the Fantastika (science fiction, fantasy and horror) know that it has its roots in the literature of the Graeco-Roman world (Homer’s Odyssey, Lucian’s True History). At the same time, scholars of Classical Reception are increasingly investigating all aspects of popular culture, and have begun looking at science fiction. However, scholars of the one are not often enough in contact with scholars of the other. This conference aims to bridge the divide, and provide a forum in which SF and Classical Reception scholars can meet and exchange ideas.

We invite proposals for papers (20 minutes plus discussion) or themed panels of three or four papers from a wide range of disciplines (including Science Fiction, Classical Reception and Literature), from academics, students, fans, and anyone else interested, on any aspect of the interaction between the Classical world of Greece and Rome and science fiction, fantasy and horror. We are looking for papers on Classical elements in modern (post-1800) examples of the Fantastika, and on science fictional or fantastic elements in Classical literature. We are particularly interested in papers addressing literary science fiction or fantasy, where we feel investigations of the interaction with the ancient world are relatively rare. But we also welcome papers on film, television, radio, comics, games, or fan culture.

Please send proposals to conferences@sf-foundation.org, to arrive by 30 September 2012. Paper proposals should be no more than 300 words. Themed panels should also include an introduction to the panel, of no more than 300 words. Please include the name of the author/panel convener, and contact details.

Swords, Sorcery, Sandals and Space is organised by the Science Fiction Foundation, with the co- operation of the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology at the University of Liverpool.

-

It can also be viewed on the Foundation events page.
And here's the official Facebook page.

Brighton Conference 2011: The Second World War: Popular Culture and Cultural Memory

The eye-catching oddity of Brighton's Royal Pavilion

Last week I gave my third paper in three months at the largest and most intimidating of my three conferences: The Second World War: Popular Culture and Popular Memory at Brighton University.

This was my first trip to Brighton and I was looking forward to the experience. Luckily I was able to get some cheap trains and stay with a cousin when down there else I fear I would  have been priced out of the whole venture. My biggest regret about the whole thing was that I wasn't able to spend a bit more time pottering around the city, what I saw of Brighton was an interesting, quirky place with a lot of character - of course it was also (on the whole) prohibitively expensive for an impoverished student such as myself, used to the cheaper thrills that Liverpool has to offer.

The conference itself ran for three days and covered a wide range of topics, mainly concerning the history and literature of the Second World War. I saw some truly fascinating papers and left with a good few sheets of hastily scribbled notes with names, dates and titles to look up now that I'm back in the solitude of Liverpool PG life. I also left having met some great people. I went to the conference not really knowing anyone (although with the slight advantage of having met or e-mailed a couple of people once or twice before) but I was delighted with how everyone opened up to each other and chatted happily not just about the conference but about all the associated small talk you'd expect. I was genuinely worried I'd get through the whole conference without really getting to know anybody and instead ended up as part of a group of people who came from different disciplines, different generations, different universities, and had a really good time sampling Brighton's ale and the conference's wine in their company.

My own paper ("Branching Paths: Nazi Victories in Alternate Second World Wars") went reasonably well, although I was conscious beforehand that it was the weakest of the three papers I've delivered this year. This was probably because although it is the final paper in a series of three, it was the first abstract to be drawn up and when it came to writing it I found myself constrained by that abstract and forced into writing something which didn't really work as a 20 minute paper as well as I'd like. That said, the reception of the paper was wonderful with several people approaching me afterwards to tell me that they'd found it interesting and informative, and that it raised questions they'd not considered before. Most of the questions asked were by historians who were simply interested in the ideas or texts, although I did get a couple of literature questions as well.

On the whole the conference was a resounding success and I'd like to thank all of the conference organisers for their hard work, and particularly thank whichever of them made the decision to accept my paper - I am immensely grateful for the opportunity. I'd also like to thank everyone I met at the conference for making me feel at ease and for listening to me talk about science fiction and alternate history.

'Civilisation and Virtual History' by Niall Ferguson

Wednesday 29 June 2011, The British Library Conference Centre.

This lecture was part of the programme of events surrounding the British Library's Out of this World: Science Fiction But Not As You Know It, a superb exhibit which I'll blog about separately soon. If I could I'd attend every one of the events that were organised, they all looked brilliant, but when I saw that Niall Ferguson was giving a talk on counterfactuals I knew I just had to be there.

Some context perhaps. Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard, but is probably best known for his work on several Channel 4 documentaries such as The Ascent of Money and the recent Civilization: Is the West History? Now in all honesty, I've never caught one of these shows, the reason I wanted to attend the lecture was his 1997 book Virtual History.

Virtual History is a collection of essays by historians imagining counterfactual scenarios, essentially engaging with "what might have been" rather than "what was". Given my study of alternate history fiction these "non-fiction" accounts are immensely interesting and the manner of their executions, their reception, and their relationship with the historical narrative are all of massive relevance to my thesis. Given the seeming rarity of academic discussion into alternate history in the UK (by which I mean conferences and lectures) I couldn't very well let this opportunity slide by, especially since it cost me a humble £5 to attend plus my travel (which luckily I pre-booked far enough ahead to get at a bargain rate).

The talk itself was very interesting and superbly well delivered, a masterclass in expressing what were at times pretty complex ideas to an audience of laymen in an engaging manner. It was essentially a summary of the lengthy introduction that Professor Ferguson includes at the beginning of Virtual History, explaining the arguments surrounding the counterfactual examination of history, the theory behind such examinations, and the benefits of counterfactual thought. Given that the original introduction was written for a book published 14 years ago it was interesting to see which elements Professor Ferguson chose to expand upon, leave out, and alter.

I was looking out for was any reference to the fictional renderings of counterfactual history, not least because they are the versions which I am studying, but also because the comments made in the introduction to Virtual History are quite dismissive: "Of course... science fiction [is] not academically respectable" (p.3) and "one thinks, for example, of Robert Harris's recent novel Fatherland, a detective story set in an imaginary Europe twenty years after a Nazi victory. As such books go, it is well researched. But it is irredeemably fictional..." (p. 7). Professor Ferguson is focusing on the historical merits of counterfactuals, as is his want, and therefore is understandably dismissive of the historical value of alternate history fiction. To put it another way, if any other historian were to dismiss historical novels as "irredeemably fictional" we might understand that the historian is arguing that the historical novel cannot imbue a proper understanding of history upon the reader, that it is a pale representation of the past intended primarily for recreation and enjoyment and only secondly (if at all) for instruction. I understand Professor Ferguson's stance in this respect, however to make such a blanketing statement as "science fiction [is] not academically respectable" is a slap in the face to everything I am trying to achieve with my thesis, not to mention the numerous more distinguished scholars who have preceded me in the field of sf.

My ears pricked then when he referred to Philip Roth's The Plot Against America and called it "fiction of huge historical merit". I regret that I wasn't selected to give a question in the brief Q+A or I would have requested Professor Ferguson expand upon this comment: what is it about The Plot Against America that gives it "huge historical merit" despite being "irredeemably fictional", is this something unique to Roth's approach on the topic, or does this represent a softening of opinion towards fictional counterfactuals from the standpoint put into print 14 years before, if so I would be interested to learn how and why this softening has occurred (I have since e-mailed my question to Professor Ferguson's Harvard account as the answer to this question could be a massively significant factor in the way in which I think about the relationship between history and fiction).

Overall it was definitely a worthwhile trip, although as ever when I visit London and the sun is shining, I wished I could stay much longer. Even if I receive no reply to my e-mail, the lecture has given me several new leads on historical theory, as well as explained some of the fine points of Virtual History which otherwise I might easily have underestimated or misunderstood.

It All Makes Sense!

So, going through the delegate lists for the CRSF conference I noticed that we had a very particular number of attendees...

  

Coincidence? Methinks not.*

*And if you don't get this reference then shame! Shame on you!

Current Research in Speculative Fiction [CRSF] 2011

Wow.

That pretty much sums my reaction to the conference. It couldn't really have gone a great deal better. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy themselves whilst also finding the papers informative and thought provoking. Certainly, the papers and discussions I saw were of a very high standard.

My official list of thanks can be seen on the official CRSF blog and whilst I remain immensely grateful to all of those people, I won't duplicate the list here. I shall, however, add a personal thanks for my girlfriend Anna who not only did all the usual stuff of being my editor and practice audience for my paper, but also manned the front desk when none of the other CRSF team members were available, and did the majority of the tidying up that got us out of the building on time, without her the whole process might not have gone quite as smoothly as it did!

The pre-conference and post-conference socials also went well with a strong attendance of both conference delegates and members of the public turning out at Waterstone's to hear Adam Roberts talk about Crime and Science Fiction (with relation to his next-but-one novel) on the Friday night. It was an interesting discussion that ended up resembling a round-table more than anything else, a happy accident as a round-table was something we wanted to include in CRSF but were unable to fit into the schedule. Talking to non-conference attendees (ie. people from my book club) afterwards they seemed to find it just as interesting and engaging as everyone else which is positive. After the conference a large group of us went for a meal in The Quarter and, barring a hiccup with the bill, had a greatly enjoyable and tasty meal.

This is, however, my personal blog and so I must now turn to my personal experience of the conference. My role in the organisation of the conference was relatively simple. I came up with the decision to organise the conference and we got to work putting it together. Most of the hard work of dealing with bookings and bureaucracy was done by Chris Pak whilst I acted as the conference "face" and point of contact for the various delegates, this meant I was perhaps heaped with more praise than I was deserving of - the conference wouldn't have happened without all Chris's hardwork, nor would it have been quite as slick without the advise, experience, and know-how of [Dr.] A.P. Canavan and Clare Parody.

My involvement was pure enjoyment. I got to open and close the conference, as well as introduce Prof. Adam Roberts's keynote lecture (Chris introduced Andy Sawyer's). I chaired a panel on Science in Science Fiction which included a brilliant paper on Kurt Vonnegut and J.G. Ballard by Erica Moore and a thought-provoking paper on Singularity Theory by Hallvard Haug. Chairing the panel was actually the part of the day I was most nervous about, it being my first experience of such a responsibility, and I was relieved to have two great papers and speakers which triggered an extended discussion session which needed little, if any, prompting from me.

The only other task of note I had to perform was giving my own paper. Haphazardly written in the week leading up to the conference it was titled "Alternate Histories and the Paratextual Instinct" and essentially used paratexts to examine the positioning of alternate history in the literary canon (is it science fiction, historical fiction, a literary technique or a genre in its own right?) and came to the conclusion that the situation as stands is confusing and requires a lot more attention and research (hence my thesis). Given that I only finished the paper on the Tuesday before the conference, my practice time was significantly truncated and delivering my paper in the first session of the day (a move intended to remove pressure from me for the rest of the day) meant I didn't have time to read it over at the last minute. As a result of these factors my delivery was somewhat more disjointed and generally sloppy than I would have preferred; a fact highlighted by verbal slip of referring historian Niall Ferguson as Niall Harrison, a slip which Adam Roberts promptly tweeted to the tweeterverse... *sigh*

I wasn't 100% happy with my paper, I feel my argument could have been more slick, but as I've already indicated I only had myself to blame for this problem as I didn't manage my time leading up to the conference properly. My next conference paper is Brighton's "The Second World War: Popular Culture and Popular Memory", I don't intend to make the same mistake and so will be cracking on with this paper asap.

So, on the whole CRSF was great. I certainly enjoyed myself and came out of the day feeling really positive about the whole thing (if utterly exhausted). Roll on CRSF 2012 I say....

Official Conference Photo

CRSF 2011 - This Saturday

It's been a busy time, hence no blog activity.

The organisation of the Current Research in Speculative Fiction [CRSF] conference has gone more smoothly than I had dared to dream it would. One or two last minute hiccups but nothing that ever seriously jeopardised the conference's existence, or its vision to present the best PG research into sf in a friendly environment. That said, there's been a tonne to do: creating the various documents needed for the delegate packs, relaying information backwards and forwards between the key note speakers, the conference team, and the delegates. It has, however, been amazing. In all the hustle and bustle I almost forgot to write my own paper, and the biggest source of stress has been putting something together I won't be ashamed to present to my peers. I think I'm finally there now with a paper titled: "Alternate Histories and the Paratextual Instinct: Categorising the Form", hopefully it won't be too dry...