Sorry for the tardiness. I had a lot of grading to catch up on this weekend!

There’s a lot of “academic speak,” so my translated to the best of my ability. Many of the thoughts are incomplete. Mr. Mieville tends to ramble in his answers in the Q&A, but if the answer seems like a tangent, it probably is!

--------------------------------------------

My notes from China Mieville’s academic lecture (funded by James Gunn at the University of Kansas)
Title: Cognition as Ideology: a Dialectic on Science Fiction Theory

Intro and Background on the Gunn endowment
China was wearing a chocolate brown button-up shirt with a teal tie, black slacks, and black-rimmed glasses

Most of the talk centered around the division between sf and fantasy, “the possible versus the impossible,” which is the crux of the divide between the two

This debate is important because sf matters culturally, it’s culturally fashionable. As such, the divide between sf/f prompts political consequences.

If you were to look at the boundaries between sf/f there would be overlap from both an academic and fan (folk knowledge) perspective. Much scholarly work in this field is discussed.

Seminal work (1979) Darko Suvin’s Metamorphosis of Science Fiction

sf exhibits “cognitive estrangement” and is validated by (organized) cognitive logic
whereas genre fantasy follows anticognitive laws, is irrational, reactionary, and contaminates sf on the bookshelves,
In (2000) Suvin acknowledges that some fantasy can be taken seriously (China’s speculation is because it has become so popular)

------------------------------------

Frederick Jameson and Carl Friedman have similar views to Suvin.

One argument espouses that the big difference between sf and fantasy is the result of “The Cognition Effect.” Even though the science in sf may not be real, it’s implemented in terms of the scientific method. As such the scientific truth of sf isn’t important (it’s the thought that counts).
Ex: H.G. Wells vs. Jules Verne
Ex: dragons vs. faster than light travel (both improbably, but ftl prompts cognition)
Ex: C.S. Lewis (Out of the Silent Plant) vs. Tolkein (LotR)

Friedman battles arguments of sf books whose science is later proven false- “mistaken” science, not “wrong” science.

“Cognitive effect” does not have to follow from cognition. Wells says it’s the author’s function to “trick” the reader into unwary acceptance.

Appearance of the command of scientific language is more important that the truthfulness of the science.

As such “the cognitive effect” is a function of “charismatic authority,” in which the work reads as if logical.

-----------------------------------

Another main feature of many sf works is the “Aspirations in the Technocrat,” a utopian bureaucracy that knows better (anti-democratic).

Influential book Colonialism in the Emergence of Science Fiction

In these works cognition is surrendered to authority. In general these autocratic ideologies (as any ideology) are not dependent upon the validity of the claims but on the charisma.

China goes on to talk about sf as its own ideology.
Fantasy, also an ideological product, is like sf and not surrealism in that sf and fantasy have a significant pulp heritage

------------------------

Summary:
1) Distinction between sf and fantasy is pertinent but not based on a firewall. While they are different they have in common a characteristic shared sense of estrangement. China feels that this shared estrangement should be emphasized by getting away from utopia towards unreality.

2) The boundary between sf/f is being eroded, possibly blurred. China comments on this problem by saying that the boundaries should be undermined by interrogation. Rather than blur the boundary, approach it from a different direction. So it follows that he believes attention should be shifted to the neglected half of the equation (fantasy). [I don’t know if he meant authors or scholars here.]

sf vs. fantasy is often referred to as “legitimate vs. illegitimate forms of cognition”

------------------------------

Questions/Discussion
1) Discussion of editorial shifts in what’s getting published (hybrid fiction seems to be safer)

2) What does he think of the Sci-Fi network rebranding itself as SyFy?

He thinks it’s a deliberate attempt to market sf for those that normally don’t like “sci-fi,” but goes on to say that we should stop watching the sh!t they show and raise the bar in what we consume.


3) Do writing programs/workshops seem more open to genre writers?

China “Not all the writers I like are great. Some give good monster.” [Gotta love that quote.]

Genre readers owe it to non-genre to respect them as quality. But what about “outsiders” writing in genre. Many times they may have the external authority, but they can’t win the internal authority (within sf/f genre).

He give the example of Margaret Atwood [She actually popped into my head as soon as the questions was asked, so I’m glad he addressed that thought.] He feels that she fails in the cognition effect, that she herself doesn’t believe in the reality/horror of her worlds. So why should the reader? It’s highly important that the writer is committed to their world.


4) China discusses his preferences on moving away from utopias.

Utopian/dystopian ideas are not the only things that make sf interesting.
Problems:
First, if the utopian/dystopian ideals hold true, it then depicts all other sf as broken utopias
Second, these works tends to segregate themselves (are segregated?) from all other sf.

Utopia is a type of sf. Sf is not a type of utopia.

Third, reductive way of seeking radical kernels within fiction [I didn’t follow this one too well.]

He believes in reviving the “sense of wonder” discussion.


5) As a tangent to the SyFy question, how is horror related?

It fits right in with sf/f.

Distinguishing between supernatural and non-supernatural horror (creature feature vs. slasher)



6) Audience member doesn’t ask question. Makes diatribe. China scolds him.

7) Question about the Internet debate regarding privilege, race and presentation in sf

“race fail” relates to the embedded racism (another ideology) in sf

More discussion is necessary



Movie trends
Hated Transformers.

District 9 thinks it’s concerned with race, but itself has deep racial issues.


9) Articulate what he means by “good sf”
Good sf provides
-radical estrangement
-tradition of awe, sublime that’s underneath the skin of the everyday (that breaches the skin of the everyday)
-stuff that doesn’t duplicate the same tropes
-surrealistic version of “convulsive beauty” [I have no idea.]
Stop with the zombies.


Hope you can glean something from that. I felt way out of my element, even though I was an academic at an academic talk (it’s like trying to learn a new language!).