Productive Disagreement

I'm in the processing of preparing a paper for a conference that came up pretty much at the last minute. Those of you who also write conference papers on short notice know what I'm going through - the great idea, the anguish of trying to translate that idea into words, the endless search for the right way (or at least a good way) of expressing those ideas. Sometimes it gets a bit frustrating trying to translate those thoughts into words that would make sense to other people.

The argument is pretty basic. The abstract I sent in outlines it:

The futuristic (Nano)visions of Nalo Hopkinson’s Midnight Robber

Most visions of human technology of the future extrapolate the technological developments of the current moment to suggest that development will continue to penetrate human existence, enabling humanity to accomplish more while it also becomes more reliant upon those technologies. Nalo Hopkinson’s Midnight Robber begins on such a world, a world penetrated by nanotechnology to such an extent that the humans living on Toussaint feel it gives them a “sixth sense” even if it really is only a “crutch” (Hopkinson 328). However, as the action of the novel switches to New Half-Way Tree, it ultimately reveals that the interconnectedness that the “Granny Nanny” web of nanomites provides a poor account of the diversity of human experience without the stories and the relationships that also make up the life of humans.

As a technology, the nanomites of Hopkinson’s novel envision one way that the nanotechnologies under development in contemporary technoculture might affect human lives. In Nanovision: Engineering the Future, Colin Milburn suggests that nanotechnology is built on such promises, writing that, “the possibilities opened by the capability to restructure and rearrange matter at the nanoscale are immense…. the world itself can be transformed, our lived realities made completely malleable, guaranteeing that the future will be radically and immeasurably different from the present" (6). Milburn further argues that this vision of the transformative nature of nanotechnology is closely affiliated with the imagination, so that writing about nanotechnology is science-fictional in nature.

What makes Hopkinson’s novel unusual is that it counters the technophillic adulation of nanotechnology often presented within science fiction texts. Like Joan Slonczewski’s A Door Into Ocean, Midnight Robber suggests that enabling technologies do not need to be machinic or divorced from the biological reality of human life. Adopting a Caribbean patois language and attitude, the text provides a refreshing alternate to the masculine, hard science fiction that characterizes writing about nanotechnologies. At the same time that the novel valorizes hard work, relationships, forgiveness, and storytelling over reliance on technology to manage the business of everyday life, the ending suggests a role for nanotechnology that does not unduly intrude or cause dependence for the humans of New Half-Way Tree.

I was doing a good bit of flailing with this one - there's only about a page written so far - so I did what any other writer trying to put together an argument does when stalled: more research! In this case, I found a paper on the same text - Midnight Robber, slightly different idea - web of communication rather than nanotechnology, but still pretty close.

The great thing about reading this paper is that I disagreed with so much of what the writer was arguing. We agree on a number of points, but I felt like this particular writer ignored the entire last half of the book. Which got me thinking about the last half of the book in ways that I hadn't before. And I actually thought some interesting (at least to me!) thoughts about that half of it.

So, I feel reinvigorated for writing this thing. It still needs to get written, and there will be plenty of staring at the screen, tugging at hair, wandering around the house while trying to work out the argument, but I've got a jumping off point now, which is what I really needed.

Productive disagreement, indeed!

When a Bad Experience turns Good

A little while ago, I presented a paper on a single author's work at a conference and it went badly.

It was scheduled for 8am and not only was the audience only 4 people, the other two presenters didn't show up. So I moderated my own paper. Awkward. Especially since two of the audience members were only there to see the paper of a no show.

As I had recently experienced a major setback just before this, I felt like the whole conference was a bust and was really a bit angry that none of the people who I had begun to think of as friends, not just colleagues, who  usually present in this area and might show up were even there. Not even the area chair.

But. A couple of months later, I got an email from that author I was talking about. Apparently the one person in the audience who knew the novel I was talking about also knew its author and told the same about the presentation. The author asked if I would mind sharing the paper. I said, no problem, and sent it as well as some other conference work I'd done on other books. Then we emailed exchanged for a bit, which was really useful because it gave me a chance to find out what the author's perspective was on things I was seeing in the book (not that I necessarily always give that credit; my favourite prof used to always say, 'writers lie' even about their own work). I of course also thought it was kinda cool to email chat with a real author, since I only know a handful of authors, and none of this one's stature (not that it's huge; just bigger than anyone I've met to date). So, yes, I was a bit impressed that an author might take the time to ask about what us academics are writing.

But it also goes to show that even what you think are some of the lows of a career can turn out okay. You just never know....

Ultimate Geek Club

You know how book clubs are cool?

Okay, maybe you don't think they're cool. That means you might want to skip this post. Or. You might want to read on and hear about what would probably be your idea of the worst possible kind of book club. Well, either way...

A couple of friends and I decided we needed to get our theory game on and put together a theory reading book club.

Yup. Theory and book club together.

We've begun with Elizabeth Grosz's Time Travels: Feminism, Nature and Power.

I've gotta say it's been a really good experience so far. Not the book. There are several places where Grosz sets up strawmen as caricatures of what those ideas really are just to knock them down. And that's a bit annoying (especially since she picked on science fiction and science studies - two things I can say I know a little bit about).

But getting to talk to other people about the book, hearing their understanding of it, has really helped me understand some of the parts of the book better than if I had read it alone. And it reminds me of the best parts of doctoral seminars where you get to share ideas with really smart people. I mean, you get some of that at conferences, but at conferences you have to put together a formal presentation and often people don't know what you're talking about (that's the worst, isn't it? When you've slaved over a paper for months and then no one in the audience knows the book/theory you're talking about and you get no questions whatsoever.) In seminars, or in our academic book club, you all are all the same page and get to share cool ideas.

So. It may be one of the geekiest clubs ever, but I'm liking it!