Short Paper #1 Assignment: due in-class on Friday. Feb. 2nd

Short Paper #1: Society 2.0

“Recognition software doesn’t violate privacy. Recognition software expands privacy. When every machine recognizes every user, the lived environment becomes personal and unique…That’s what it says in the promotional materials my company sends to potential investors. I didn’t write it. I don’t believe it.” (Wolven 276).

For your first short paper, I want you to get your feet wet with the “pale blue dot” approach to science fiction. That is, to make us see our own society from a different perspective, the way an outsider would see it, but we no longer can. To do this, I want you to explain a modern innovation (something introduced into society no more than ten-fifteen years ago) to someone from 1918. It can be anything—Instagram, Facebook, Texting, Siri, Drones, Tinder, etc. The trick is to explain why it was invented, what problem it was supposed to solve or cure, and why people embraced it.

However, as you write, consider your AUDIENCE: this is a person who doesn’t know anything about modern technology. They didn’t have radios, television, computers, or anything other than rudimentary telephones and typewriters. So how can you explain to them why this is “good” when they might think it’s horrible? You might also consider whether you think it’s good, too! Assume that someone attending ECU in 1918 might be horrified that people “swipe” to meet people rather than go up and talk to them. How can you defend this? Why is this “better” or “improved” than dating in 1918?

REMEMBER, too, that the three stories in this conversation, “Openness,” “Caspar D. Luckinbill,” and “On the Fringes of the Fractal” don’t exactly celebrate the future. They’re explaining it to us, the outsiders, but always want us to see what’s wrong with these societal innovations.

REQUIREMENTS

• About 3-4 pages, double spaced
• Only choose ONE innovation (don’t move from one to another)
• Think about your 1918 audience: what would they understand and not understand? What would confuse them? Disturb them?
• Be sure we know how you feel about this innovation by the time we finish your paper. Are you excited to show this to your ECU ancestors…or ashamed?
• DUE IN-CLASS ON FRIDAY, FEB 2^nd (we’ll discuss them in class!)

A Few Changes and Wednesday's Class

"Revise the syllabus, we will..."

Just a reminder--the course calendar has changed slightly. Here are the changes I discussed in class for the next two weeks (the only weeks affected):

Wed, 24  Writing Workshop (no story due)
Fri, 26    No Class (I have to cancel due to a prior obligation)

Mon 29  BASFF, Story TBA
Wed 31  BASFF, Story TBA
Fri 2      Writing Workshop / Short Paper #1 due (bring to class!)

I will give you the Short Paper #1 assignment on Wednesday and we'll discuss some ideas about writing papers for Comp 2. I'll also let you know what stories to read for Monday's class. Remember that I pushed back the due date of the paper from Monday to Friday, so don't get worried when you look at your syllabus!

See you on Wednesday!

For Monday: Weinsten, “Openness” (pp.141-151)

NOTE: Answer TWO of the following questions with a short response, at least a few sentences. Be specific, and try to respond to the story, not just what you think I want to hear. There are no ‘right’ answers, just honest responses. These questions will form the basis of our in-class discussion on Monday. Questions are due IN CLASS on Monday, and turning them in afterward counts as a missed response.

Q1: What are the “layers” that the narrator constantly refers to in this story? How does it relate to our own processes of displaying our identities on-line today? Do you think we could ever get this this point (and would you want to)?

Q2: Once the narrator becomes involved with Katie, he remarks, “There was something beautiful about sharing things in the old way—the two of us walking by the shore, the smell of the pine sap, the summer air cooling in the afternoon—and for the first time in years, I wished I had a sketchpad with me” (145). Why do the layers prevent this kind of interaction with other people and the world? Do we have the same problem with our own “layers”?

Q3: What does the author mean when he writes, “We were the first generation to grow up with layers, a group of kids who’d produced thousands of tutorials on blocking unwanted users but not a single one on empathy” (148)? Why might we consider this one of the main ideas of the story—and what the narrator, himself, learns through this relationship?

Q4: How could we argue that this story, for all its science fiction technology, is actually about a completely different kind of “layers” that we all have? In other words, how is this story about the difficulty of having meaningful relationships in general, even aside from technology? 

Welcome to the Course!

Welcome to the Course! So what is Freshman Composition 2, "Writing in the Outer Limits"? In my writing classes, I like to ask students to enter different 'conversations' out society finds important, since the world is shaped by what we talk about--and how we say it. In popular culture, the conversation is dominated by a single form of entertainment--Science Fiction and Fantasy. From Star Trek to Game of Thrones, these genres are used as a frame to discuss the realities of our 21st century world. Behind the masks of wizards, aliens, Jedis, and Hobbits, we can find ourselves and our own problems staring back at us...though it's often easier to tackle these problems in fiction, where the dangers seem less real and threatening.

The great science fiction writer, Ursula K. Le Guin, once wrote that "all fiction is metaphor," and this is certainly true for both genres, as they allow us to predict the future and understand the past--all without a time machine. For this class, we'll read several books that initiate us into the various conversations of SF/F, and respond in a series of informal and researched papers that help us answer the question, "who are we, and what is our role in the universe?"

Be sure to buy the three books for class as soon as possible, since we'll start reading--and writing--next week. Please contact me at jgrasso@ecok.edu with any questions or concerns. See you in class!

Paper #4/Final Exam: Brave New Worlds

“I notice that capable men are still at a premium in our society; we still need the man who is intelligent enough to think of the proper questions to ask. Perhaps if we could find enough of such, these dislocations you worry about…wouldn’t occur” (“The Evitable Conflict,” 265).

INTRO: We already live in an age of science fiction: an age where we can watch a live video feed from Mars, as well as track asteroids as they sail past Earth. We also live in a world of global warming, virtual reality, artificial technology, and self-driving cars. What’s next? Or perhaps the better question to ask is: how is the future being shaped in the news today? What happened in yesterday’s news feed which will affect how you raise your kids tomorrow?

REPONSE: I want you to find an article on-line, or from a journal, or in a magazine (Best American Magazine Writing 2015, for those who took Comp 1 with me, perhaps) which discusses some important contemporary issue. It can be about anything, as long as it’s current and of national importance. Print this article out and include it with your paper (and be sure to read it carefully!). Then I want you to write a short science fiction story (maybe 3-4 pages double spaced) that takes this article into the “future.” Take the same issues, problems, and concerns and place them in a new setting—a future Earth, or another planet, or among aliens, or robots, or on a starship. If science fiction is a metaphor for our own world, help us see the problems and debates of this issue in a different time and place. Remember, it’s often hard to see why we should care about something in our own time: but if you can fool us into seeing it in a different context, we might finally understand why our 21^st century problems matter.

FOR EXAMPLE: The Star Trek episode we watched in class, “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” (1969), was released during the Civil Rights Movement, at a time when you couldn’t really discuss race or equal rights on a television show...but you could talk about aliens with the same issues. At the end of this episode, with their planet in flames and their hatred intact, Lt. Uhuru asks, “do you suppose that’s all they ever had, sir?” And Captain Kirk responds, “No...but that’s all they have left.” A fitting epilogue for a country that was tearing itself apart over age-old prejudices when they might have united in brotherhood.

DUE: Thursday, May 4^th by 5pm in my box or office

For Tuesday: Asimov, I Robot: “Escape!” and “Evidence”

 

The robot eye of H.A.L. from 2001: A Space Odyssey

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In trying to ascertain whether or not Byerley is a robot or not, Dr. Susan Calvin remarks, “To put it simply—if Byerley follows all the Rules of Robots, he may be a robot, and may simply be a very good man” (221). How might this statement allow Asimov to use Byerley as a metaphor for how a “cleaner, better breed” should act like in society? Where do we see Byerley functioning like this in the story?

Q2: Dr. Susan Calvin remarks in “Escape!” that a robot’s brain “is built by humans and is therefore built according to human values” (177). Why is this a significant statement, and how does it help explain why the Brain acts as he does? Why would Calvin argue that the Brain acted the way a human would act, rather than the way a robot would?

Q3: Byerley refuses to submit to X-ray tests and other investigations which he considers a violation of his personal rights, even if they would immediately expose the lies about his robotic identity. As he tells Quinn, “You have little concern with the rights of the individual citizen. I have great concern. I will not submit to X-ray analysis, because I wish to maintain my Rights on principle” (230). Why might this also be a political statement on Asimov’s part, one that raises concerns about due process in the 1950’s—as well as in our own age?

Q4: In both stories, it initially seems like the robots are breaking the First and the Second Laws of Robotics. However, it later turns out that to truly obey these laws requires a fair amount of deception, secrecy, and creativity. Do you think this is justified? Are these merely the “white lies” necessary to save humanity? Or are these robots taking too many liberties in deciding what is good for us—and what isn’t?

Scissortail Creative Writing Festival Assignment (optional)

Remember, no class on Thursday: instead, you can go to the Scissortail Creative Writing Festival. Here's a link to the schedule for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday: http://ecuscissortail.blogspot.com/2017/01/2017-schedule-of-readings.html

You can go to 1 or 2 sessions for extra credit. But for each one you go to, make sure to answer the following 4 questions (just like our blog responses, except you have to do all 4!) in a short paragraph--a few sentences each. As long as you give a thoughtful, honest response, I can excuse 2 absences or 2 missed blog responses--or 4/4 if you do a good job on two. But remember, this is extra credit, so if you just give me hasty, one-sentence responses or try to BS about sessions you didn't attend, I can't give you credit. 

THE QUESTIONS

Q1: Which of the authors interested you the most and why? Why did you respond their poems and/or story and why might you read more from this author?

Q2: Which piece (if any) did you find difficult to follow or understand and why? Is is simply not your kind of material, or was it too vulgar, or depressing, or confusing? 

If you liked all the pieces you heard by each writer, answer this instead: how did each author's reading work together as a whole? Why did these 3 (or 4) writers work well together? Was there any common themes or ideas that seemed to link them together?

Q3: Discuss briefly how the authors presented their material: their reading style, introductions, gestures, and other details that helped you appreciate the stories/poems. In other words, how did the authors help you understand their work through their performance?

Q4: How did the audience react to these authors/works? Did certain works get more response than others--and if so, why? Did people laugh? Were they completely silent. Did people seem to 'get' these writers, or did some leave them scratching their heads? How could you tell? 

Hope to see you at the Festival! 

For Tuesday: Asimov, I, Robot: "Liar" and "Lost Little Robot" + Paper #3 assignment

Two more stories for Tuesday--"Liar" and "Lost Little Robot"--and no questions this time, since I want you to do another in-class writing to get you ready for Paper #3 (pasted below). We only have a few more readings and questions due, so don't fall behind! 

Paper #3: The Robots Are Coming

“Because, if you stop to think about it, the three Rules of Robotics are the essential guiding principles of a good many of the world’s ethical systems...if Byerley follows all the Rules of Robotics, he may be a robot, and may simply be a very good man” (“Evidence”).

The robots are coming! Well, in many ways they’re already here—especially in fiction. Suppose the stories of I, Robot are true in the hypothetical future, and like John Connor in The Terminator, you’ve come back in time to warn the Earth. However, there are many different ways to read these stories, some pessimistic, some optimistic. If you had the opportunity to share this ‘future’ with humanity, and invite other science fiction prophets to the table, which argument would you choose?

Ø  #1: Robots are a “cleaner, better breed” of human beings because they are us. We have essentially created a race of ‘older brothers/sisters’ to guide us safely into the future so we don’t extinguish ourselves in the process.

Ø  #2: Robots are too much like humans to be trusted: they will constantly seek to dominate humans by fudging the Three Laws until human beings are no more than docile pets, and robots the truth heirs of the planet Earth.

SOURCES (at least 5 sources total):

• PRIMARY SOURCES: You must use at least TWO stories from I, Robot in your conversation (quotes that are discussed in your paper). Additionally, you may use any of the short stories from Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2016.
• SUPPORT: At least TWO recent sources (articles, books, or a reliable website with an author or from a major organization) that AGREE with you. You must quote from these and use them to support your ideas.
• NAYSAYER: At least ONE recent source (articles, books, or a reliable website with an author or from a major organization) that DISAGREES or shows another side of your argument. You can use Asimov or one of the stories as a naysayer, but you have to use a different story than the two you used above.

Remember that this isn’t just a silly science fiction story; robots are getting more advanced and arguably more aware every day. Many leading scientists, such as Steven Hawking, are genuinely concerned about the power we’ve assigned robots and AI in our daily lives, and some fear we’ve already gone too far to turn back. How has the discussion advanced since Asimov wrote these stories in the 40’s and 50’s? Additionally, why are Asimov’s ideas still relevant today? How does the metaphor of “robot life” help us see the possibilities and dangers of our own advancement? Try to figure out which side he’s on, too...

LENGTH: At least 4-5 pages double spaced

CITATION: Introduce all quotations and cite at the end; include a Works Cited page for every source you use in your paper.

DUE DATE: Thursday, April 13th by 5pm

For Thursday: Asimov, I, Robot: “Reason” and “Catch That Rabbit”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In “Reason,” the robot, QT (“Cutie”), develops an elaborate religion based on “the Master,” allowing him to assume full control of the station. According to Donovan and Powell, how does this religion (which seems to contract the First and Second Laws) actually follow the Laws of Robotics? In a way, why did Cutie have to develop this religion in order to do his job properly?

Q2: Forced to argue with Cutie, Powell exclaims, “Who the heck wants to argue with a robot? It’s...it’s...” and Donovan adds, “Mortifying!” (71). In general, how do the men treat and view their robotic counterparts? Why does Asimov emphasize this relationship throughout the stories?

Q3: In each story, we see robots exhibiting behavior which is more and more “human,” even though we’re told that robots can only follow a strict program. In “Catch That Rabbit,” what very human problem causes DV-5 (“Dave”) to malfunction and disobey the Second Order?

Q4: When presented with irrefutable facts about robots and space, Cutie responds: “You, being intelligent, but unreasoning, need an explanation of existence supplied to you, and this the Master did. That he supplied you with these laughable ideas of far-off words and people is, no doubt, for the best. Your minds are probably too coarsely grained for absolute Truth” (75). Though this is a robot talking, why might this be a metaphor for human behavior in our own world? What might this story be really suggesting about how humans think and behave? 

For Tuesday: Asimov, Introduction + First 2 Stories: "Robbie" and "Runaronud"

For Tuesday, be sure to read the Introduction plus first two stories of I, Robot. We'll have an in-class response when you arrive. As you read, consider Susan Calvin's comment in the Introduction that "[Robots] are a cleaner better breed than we are." Since she's clearly being serious, what does she mean by this? What seems to make robots "cleaner" or "more advanced" than their human counterparts in ways besides technology? And why might they be a lot like the parrots in "The Great Silence," our masters rather than our servants or pets?

See you next week! 

For Thursday: Chiang, “The Great Silence” (pp.273-276)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why do you think the parrot narrator repeats the last words of Alex at the end of the story: “You be good. I love you”? While we imagine these were just common words that Alex told to his masters, why does the narrator claim that this is the parrots’ message to humanity? Is there another way to understand them?

Q2: One of the great lines in the story states, “the hush of the night sky is the silence of a graveyard” (273). What does the narrator mean by this, and how does it relate to the title of the story—“the great silence”? What made everything so silent?

Q3: According to this story, how does being a “vocal learner” change how you experience and see the world? If you didn’t speak or use verbal language, what aspects of the world would be less important to you? In other words, what concepts/values would they lack that we (and parrots) take for granted?

Q4: The Arecibo Observatory is a real place (see picture above) built in 1974 in Puerto Rico to, among other things, search for alien life. As the parrot explains, “astronomers used Arecibo to broadcast a message into outer space intended to demonstrate human intelligence. That was humanity’s contact call” (274). How does this relate to the communication of parrots and why might the parrot narrator find this somewhat ironic? 

For Thursday: Dickinson, “Three Bodies at Mitanni” (pp.234-253)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What is this mission of this crew and why is it so problematic? How have they tried to ensure that their decisions are made in an ethically sound manner? Do you think these safeguards are enough, or is there very mission flawed and unethical?

Q2: What is a “Duong-Watts malignant?” Why does Mitanni society fit this definition? Do the people of Mitanni agree with this—are they consciously “malignant”? Or is malignancy in the eye of the beholder?

Q3: How has the crew changed on their four-hundred year mission? Though they are judging worlds for possible malignancy, are they somewhat malignant themselves? Or does this story suggest that even in isolation, humans will always remain fundamentally human—which is why their mission is safe?

Q4: Like the story, Daydreamer by Proxy, Mitanni society has discovered the secret to gaining the maximum potential from each citizen. Yet they are not slaves, since as Anyahera explains, “The slave still expends caloric and behavioral resources on being conscious; the slave seeks to maximize its own pleasure, not its social utility. A clever state will go one step further and eliminate the cause of these inefficiencies at the root. They will sever thought from awareness” (243). According to this, why is consciousness (or individual human thought) an impediment to the success of a society? Why might it get in the way of the ‘greater good’? 

For Thursday: Never Let Me Go (film)

If you missed class on Tuesday, we watched the first 2/3 of Never Let Me Go, a science-fiction film that loosely relates to Feed. You are welcome to use Never Let Me Go as a source in your paper, as long as you bring it into your conversation in a specific way (we'll discuss how to do that on Thursday). We'll finish the film on Thursday and do an in-class writing that may help you start writing the paper--which is due on Friday by 5pm! Don't forget!

Here's a link to the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXiRZhDEo8A