YLEM Journal
"Science Fiction and Its Discontents"
by Loren
Means, Editor
Volume 25, Number 10 and 12
YLEM San Francisco, CA, 2006
30 pp., illus. 13 b/w. Trade, $10.00
SSN: 1507-2031.
Reviewed by John F. Barber
School of Arts and Humanities, The University
of Texas at Dallas
jfbarber@eaze.net
YLEM, pronounced "eye-lem," after the
Greek for the exploding mass from which
the universe emerged, is an international
organization of artists, scientists, authors,
curators, educators, and art enthusiasts
who explore the intersection of Arts,
Science, and Technology. YLEM strives
to bring the humanizing and unifying forces
of art to contemporary culture. Their
newsletter, YLEM Journal, provides
periodic reports of the group's efforts.
This particular issue, Volume 25, Number
10 and 12, subtitled "Science Fiction
and Its Discontents," collects interviews
with four noted science fiction writers:
Rudy Rucker, Michael Moorcock, Brian Aldiss,
and Gregory Benford. All interviews are
conducted/edited by Executive Editor Loren
Means, who also authors an introductory
editorial and a brief essay entitled "Low-Voltage:
Ontological Currents: Robots in the Fiction
of Brian Aldiss and Rudy Rucker."
Despite his omnipresence, Means never
clearly defines, either overtly or through
his editing, the discontents of science
fiction. This determination is left to
the reader, and the process becomes one
of interpretation and extrapolation.
For example, in his review of depictions
of robots by Aldiss and Rucker, paying
particular attention to what he calls
the "three provocative aspects of contemporary
robotics," Means says each author deals
with in "more or less predictive ways":
robot emotions, emergence as a way of
creating robot behavior, and mind transfer
to robotic bodies (15).
According to Means, Aldiss contends that
emotionless robots may be seen as a warning
to humanity to retain some chaos instead
of favoring automatic responses to given
situations. Rucker, on the other hand,
says Means, sees emotions as "weights"
assigned to certain situations. Evaluations
of outcomes predicted by alternative courses
of action can, then, lead to a course
of action (emotional response) with the
highest satisfaction rating (16).
Both Aldiss and Rucker, according to Means,
present robots that teach themselves to
be intelligent. Both say unexpected behavior
will emerge and Artificial Intelligence
programs will merge, all through a randomly
evolving process.
As for mind transfer to a storage device,
both Aldiss and Rucker postulate how this
might work, and some of the outcomes,
which, according to Means, point to eventual
positive acceptance of the practice by
humans.
Where then is the discontent? Lacking
clear evidence, the reader is left to
infer the source when Means notes three
new aspects of contemporary robotics not
anticipated by Aldiss or Rucker: Emergence
is exhibiting intelligence not programmed
into robots, the reasonable anticipation
that robots will make themselves into
something unanticipated, and the increased
effectiveness of distributed intelligence.
The interviews with Aldiss, Rucker, Moorcock,
and Benford also hint at discontent, but
again the reader is responsible for identifying
its sources. Rucker's discontent seems
to comes from his sense that the "market
for science books these days is geared
towards books having precisely one idea,
which is then buttressed with water-cooler-level
discussions of pre-digested news stories
that have been fed to us by the media"
(7). Science, says Rucker, must learn
to synthesize multiple theories for strange
phenomena, or if that is not possible,
consider holding multiple views simultaneously.
In his interview, Moorcock says, "I saw
science fiction as being able to develop
intellectual ideas, new sorts of ideas,
and to produce what people talked about
existing rather than just talking about
it" (10). Moorcock's discontent seems
to be with the apparent failure of science
fiction to fully evolve its ability to
respond quickly to the news of the day
(11). "That's why I gradually lost conventional
science fiction, because it wasn't suitable
for what a lot of writers wanted to say"
(13).
Discontent for Aldiss seems to evolve
from multiple sources. First, he admits
to a lack of rapport with any particular
professional role. He's a successful writer,
which is supposed to bring status, but
being a science fiction writer negates
that status. Second, as Aldiss says, "things
have advanced so far, that in that aspect,
they are science fiction" (23). And finally,
he notes discontent with the settings
for science fiction stories. Localized
stories are only interesting to readers
in that location. But if you set a story
on Mars, it will be interesting to more
people across a broader number of places,
says Aldiss (23).
For Benford, discontent seems to come
from the fact that current science fiction
rides a trend as a branch of fantasy,
which, says Benford, is ultimately unsatisfying
to a large percentage of science fiction
readers and writers.
These points are buried in each interview.
None are mined or questioned or clarified
by editor Means. In fact, it would appear
that each has emerged, quite by chance,
from rambling interviews lacking an overarching
thematic approach by the editor. Instead,
by his own admission, Means inserts himself
far too much into each interview, at times
seemingly only to drop names or curry
pedigree.
In his conclusion, however, Means makes
a salient point when he says what is needed
to dispel discontent is a viable new trend
in hard science fiction, one that will
invigorate its writers and inspire its
readers. The particulars of this trendits
focus, application, and content (perhaps
intelligent robots?)are left unstated.
Means only says the trend is "probably
coming" to London (why?) or San Francisco
(because of YLEM?) to be born (are trends
born, or do they emerge, like robot intelligence?).
So, in the end, Means exhibits the same
lack of prediction he notes of Aldiss
and Rucker, and the reader who has stayed
this far will feel genuine discontent.