交大科幻研究中心在 2003 年廣發武林帖，舉辦第一屆，也是該中心唯一一屆的科幻研究學術會議。我在當年的十一月取得該會議的初步論文集（後來該會議的正式論文集於 2004 年十二月由交通大學出版社出版），並在當時的部落格上發表本文，同時呈送至科幻基金會（The Science Fiction Foundation）和 Locus 雜誌（不過均未刊登）。本文初版發表時，承蒙劉人鵬及白瑞梅兩位教授前來指正我文中對她們所發表論文創作源頭的錯誤推論，同時針對我的批評角度提供一些寶貴的意見。我當時也秉持非‧臺灣科幻一員的科幻研究者立場闡明我自己的看法。最後科科門副總舵主鄭運鴻也來表示他的立場，而我的私下回應算是我與科科門正式決裂的開始。以下是當時公開文章的存檔，算是歷史的軌跡記錄吧。（其中浪子兄的發言因為無關此討論，我在此刪除了 ^^;;）
台灣根本沒有SF土壤，這是您我心知肚明的事情：沒有作品，卻存在小眾讀者（學術圈/準學術圈）；沒有產業，卻有大眾消費（好萊塢產品/日式ACG市場）；沒有文化，卻有一堆相輕的文人（(^_^!!!)）！其中詭異的道理，我想您應該很清楚。對照一下他從過去到現在的專欄與教學內容，是誰在繼續消費好萊塢和 ACG，而不檢視過去存在的 SF 作品和早逝（或許慢慢正在另起爐灶）的 SF 文化，我就不多說了。畢竟，我只是專搞顛覆和破壞的毒瘤而已嘛。8-p
A Report of Csfs2003
◎ Corrected my mistake. (10/11/2003)
◎ This report will be published in the official website of The SF Foundation. I also sent an abridged edition (without my opinions) to Locus. I hope they will print it in the 'International Report' section.
2003 Conference on Science Fiction Studies
Chinese(#1) Science Fiction Studies: Past, Present and Future
by Danny J. Han-Chang Lin, Postgraduate of MA in Science Fiction Studies, University of Liverpool
On 18th October, the Centre for Sf Studies of National Chiao Tung University hosted Csfs2003 in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Around 200 scholars, writers, students and fans attended this occasion. The purpose of the conference is 'to search the futuristic reference point of Chinese technology, to stimulate the potential creativity in Chinese scientific imagination, and to promote the status of sf research in the academic studies'.(#2) The host organisation hopes 'this small step we are taking will become a big decisive stride of Chinese society while looking backward from 2020'.(#3)
The first event in the conference is the keynote speaker Hai Hwang’s address, 'Science Fiction: Where Will It Lead?' Hwang is the only earliest sf contributor who continues writing. In this address, Hwang argues 'the points of originality in SF can be reduced, or qualified, into a "periodic table of SF"'(#4), and like the 'period table of elements', 'it would be nearly impossible to add new elements in it.'(#5) He also talks about recent Hugo winners, J K Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000) and Neil Gaiman's American Gods (2000), arguing science fiction is fading out and leaving its place for fantasy. The only new hope in hard sf is 'nanotechnology', a sort of 'magical technology'. So, the future of Chinese sf lies in the soft sf, featuring deeper thoughts and literary qualities. Besides, 'the study of theoretical physics is becoming more and more science fictional, as cosmology can be said to have "science-fictionalised"'(#6), thus also can provide some sf inspiration.
After Hwang's address, 12 papers were presented in four sections. In his essay 'The Philosophical Elements of Science Fiction', Dr Ruey-Lin Chen shows 'the close and inseparable relationship between science fiction and philosophy from the perspective of philosophical analysis'(#7) in four points: '1. both share a logical formula; 2. the imagination and plot of science fiction usually imply philosophical questions, which could become serious problems in philosophy; 3. science fiction originated from speculation and inquiry in philosophy, and there is a science-fictional tradition in the history of philosophy; 4. philosophical evaluation should be a necessary standard for any evaluation of science fiction'(#8), and then proposes 'a method of philosophical reading for science fiction.'(#9)
Dr Shu-Chen Chiang, provides a postmodern viewpoint referring to 'both aesthetics and social critique'(#10) on reading Shi-Kuo Chang's sf works, and from that, criticises current sf promotion of National Chiao Tung University in her 'The Meaning of Existence and the Historical Necessity: (Mis)reading Shi-Kuo Chang’s Postmodernity'.
'Schadenfreude: Truth, Violence, and Surveillance in Lucifer Hung's Science Fiction', a paper by Dr Amie Parry and Dr Jen-peng Liu, was revised from their essay presented in AAS (Association for Asian Studies) Annual Meeting in March 2003. They firstly point out three characteristics in Lucifer Hung's sf works: hybridity, queer and violence(#11), and then argues 1) 'this hybridity facilitates the representation of events and experiences normally excluded from conventional representational works'(#12) and 2) 'Hung's narratives refuse the ethicality of the victim expected of queer narratives and that her narrator's tendency to occupy a hegemonic position is not a failure of political correctness but is itself a strategy to avoid the discursive traps of victim-ethically in reticent discourses of schadenfreude'.(#13)
Daw-hwan Wang's 'Will Human Continue Evolving? -- Recipe to Boost up Humanity's Future Evolution' briefly lists some questions in the research of human evolution and criticises the incorrectness in several sf texts, mainly in H G Wells's The Time Machine (1895) and Kurt Vonnegut Jr's Galapagos (1985).
'Moon, Mars, and Life' by Dr Wen-ping Chen is another scientific essay. Chen introduces several scientific questions and facts, including 'Are there human beings/intelligent lives in the Moon or the Mars?', the Moon's influence over lives on the Earth, historical and planning explorations of Mars.
US's leading role in aerospace technology and Japan's success in robotic industry inspire Arthur Yun-hung Cheng; he argues these two hi-tech superpowers' achievements are related to their 'popular sci-fi culture industries'. In his 'Hi-Tech Superpower Vs Sci-Fi Superpower', he lists two examples: Star Trek makes American citizens understand and support their NASA programs, while the popularity of robot manga/animation makes Japanese engineers devote themselves to manufacturing 'real' robots. Cheng also argues 'sci-fi superpowers', without exception, are destined to be 'hi-tech superpowers' because various and numerous sf works can help building a traditional sense, a 'social language' among the masses, providing 'motivation' and 'blueprints' of scientific/technological development. Therefore, if Chinese society hopes to be a 'hi-tech superpower', she should build a sci-fi dream first.
Chien-chun Lin's 'Real-World Image of the Future -- Contemporary Issues in the SF of Late Ching Dynasty' is a re-write of chapter four in his master's dissertation 'The Research on Sf of Late Ching Dynasty (1904-1911)' written in 2001. He surveys 13 sf texts written and published during this period and points out five contemporary subjects discussed among them. They are 'the call to save the nation through science', 'the awakening of national consciousness', 'hopes placed upon political revolution'(#14), 'stirring thoughts of women's rights' and 'criticism of superstitions and corrupt customs'.
'The Modernity of the Late Ching Dynasty: Research Based on the S.F. in the Period of Late Ching' is the other essay on the Chinese proto sf works in the early 20th century. First, the author Chiao-wen Ke describes the modernity happened in the late Chinese Empire, and then discusses several issues mentioned in the work A Novel of the Moon Colonisation (1904) by 'An Old Fisherman on the Desolate River' (the pseudonym of the novel's author). For a further and broader view of modernity issues discussed in proto sf of Late Ching Dynasty, readers can refer to chapter five 'Confused Horizons: Science Fantasy' in Dr David Der-Wei Wang's canonical work Fin-de-siecle Splendor: Repressed Modernities of Late Qing Fiction, 1849-1911 (1997).
Cheng-liang Wang predicts and speculates what sf will be and how it will be written through a deduction of narratology in his 'The Narrative Style in 2030's Science Fiction'. He argues 'it seems easy to imagine the appearance of sf in 2030; though there will be some errors, they might still be legitimate.'(#15) But it is weird that Wang does not use any facts in sf history to support his theory.
Hong-chuan Hsiang leads a brief tour on contemporary Taiwanese female sf writers and their works in 'Female Writers and Science Fictions in Taiwan', which seems to be extracted from the introduction essay, which is the preface of The Anthology of Taiwanese Science Fiction (2003), a book under his editorship. The tour is too short to give the reader a whole image of each writer he mentioned.
In Jui-tien Huang's 'On the Relationship Between SF and Humanity', he depicts the boundaries between natural science, 'humanity science' and social science, 'humanity science' under the influence of rapid development of technology, and the elements in science fiction texts. Finally he concludes there should be a strong connection between sf and 'humanity science'.
In the last paper of this conference, 'Information Theory and Futuristic Speculation -- The Scientific Backgrounds of SKC's "The City Trilogy"', Jyh-arng Lee takes advantage of the theory of information exchange submitted by Shi-Kuo Chang himself, using the models to analyse the plots of 'The City Trilogy', especially the 'Five Jade Disks' riddle. Besides that, he also criticises some illogical scientific/technological setting in the trilogy.
After a brief report on all the papers in this conference, I would like to express some personal opinions on these works.
There are several common problems in the sf studies in Taiwan, clearly shown/reflected in the essays of this conference. The most significant is researchers lack the ability to search for and read the first-hand foreign sf data. Many researchers fetch only translated or edited 'information'; even though some of them can read the original works, what they absorb are a very small portion of sf academic works without accompanying extensive texts. Thus makes almost none of Taiwanese scholars have enough knowledge about English sf, let alone sf in other countries/cultures (Japanese sf, especially the manga/animation part, might be the only exception), so that there are always weird conclusions when they try to refer to western sf. Bearing this in mind, we will not be astounded while seeing that Cheng-liang Wang can predict the narrative style of sf in 2030 without references of any sf history or analyses of contemporary sf; Hong-chuan Hsiang can say 'it is a comparatively safer statement that western sf tradition could be traced back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818)'(#16), which is actually almost as dangerous as other theories; Arthur Yun-hung Cheng's 'sci-fi powers' are just United States and Japan, leaving out other Anglo-American sf countries such as United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and as for other nations, like the USSR, he asserts 'there seemed not to be great amount characterised (and world-wide well-known) sf cultural products (propaganda) along with the Soviet Union's space technology development. So the USSR was not qualified as a sci-fi superpower'.(#17) Also in a similar situation, authors of the two essays on the proto sf in Late Ching Dynasty were not aware of Dr Der-Wei Wang's broader and further research on the same topic several years before, since Dr Wang's work has not been translated into Chinese until this August.
Hai Hwang's address is more interesting. He uses two fantasy Hugo winners to argue sf is fading out, and treats Michael Crichton's Prey (2002) and David Langford's 'Different Kinds of Darkness' (2000) as new paradigms of 'hard sf' and 'soft sf' respectively. Since all his knowledge of western sf is from Chinese scholar Yan Wu's website 'The Borderland of Imagination' (http://www.wuyancentral.com/)(#18), he does not understand even if writers run out of original sf ideas from 'newer' science/technology, they still can build numerous 'nova' through reconstructing, reassembling or discussing further issues of the existing ones. Nor does he know that nanotechnology was in fact put in the 'periodic table of sf elements' long time ago. And as Neil Gaiman received the Hugo trophy in ConJose, Vernor Vinge just had finished his Guest of Honour speech on 'singularity' two days before, which was the 'comparatively' new concept in hard sf. Through these examples we can see that it is essential for the local sf popularisers and publishers to import/translate much more western sf in order to improve sf senses in Taiwanese readers/writers/critics.
The second problem in Taiwanese sf research is: some scholars are prone to concentrate on a too basic or extensive topic which needs numerous volumes to cover. Two typical cases are shown in this conference. It is obvious to recognise the philosophical and 'humanity scientific' elements in sf, and researchers should be more concerned with the analyses/interpretations on a certain text, not just emphasise their importance. So the appendix of Dr Ruey-lin Chen's 'The Philosophical Elements of Science Fiction' is more interesting than its main body due to the fact that he provides a concrete interpretation of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End (1953), while Jui-tien Huang fails to provide a solid example in his own essay.
Daw-hwan Wang's paper shows some Taiwanese scientists' ambivalence toward sf. They hope sf could help popularise science, but on the other hand they also accuse sf texts of providing inaccurate scientific knowledge. Wang criticises the plots in The Time Machine and Galapagos are not completely based on scientific facts (in these cases, Darwin's theory of evolution) and points out the ridiculousness in Robert J. Sawyer's Hominids (2002), since it describes a pair of parallel worlds where human beings and Neanderthals live in respectively. We can see Gernsbackian sf theories, though faded out long time ago, are still emphasised in Taiwan.
Like the sf development, sf research on the island still has a long way to go. However, as more and more scholars pay attention to this field, there is a hope of sf studies. What in need is a more extensive and proper understanding of science fiction. All in all, this conference is a promising start; I hope there will be more opportunities for local researchers to share their efforts in the recent future.
Finally, I would like to list the complete programme of this conference at the below:
Hai Hwang, senior Taiwanese sf writer, 'Science Fiction: Where Will It Lead?'
Section A: From Philosophy to Literature
A1: Ruey-lin Chen, Assistant Professor in Department of Philosophy, Soochow University, 'The Philosophical Elements of Science Fiction'
A2: Shu-chen Chiang, Associate Professor in Graduate Institution for Social Research and Cultural Studies, National Chiao Tung University, 'The Meaning of Existence and the Historical Necessity: (Mis)reading Shi-Kuo Chang's Postmodernity'
A3: Amie Parry, Associate Professor in English Department, National Central University and Jen-peng Liu, Associate Professor in Chinese Department, National Tsing Hua University, 'Schadenfreude: Truth, Violence and Surveillance in Lucifer Hung's Science Fiction'
Section B: From Supermen to Robots
B1: Daw-hwan Wang, Assistant Research Fellow in Institute of History and Philosophy, Academia Sinica, 'Will Human Continue Evolving? -- Recipe to Boost up Humanity's Future Evolution'
B2: Wen-ping Chen, Associate Professor in Institute of Astronomy and Department of Physics, National Central University, 'Moon, Mars, and Life'
B3: Arthur Yun-hung Cheng, Lecturer in National Taiwan University of Arts, 'Hi-Tech Superpower Vs Sci-Fi Superpower'
Section C: From 1900 to 2030
C1: Chien-chun Lin, PhD Postgraduate in Department of Chinese Literature, National Tsing Hua University, 'Real-World Image of the Future -- Contemporary Issues in the SF of Late Ching Dynasty'
C2: Chiao-wen Ke, MA Candidate in Graduate School of Literature, Nan-Hua University, 'The Modernity of the Late Ching Dynasty: Research Based on the S.F. in the Period of Late Ching'
C3: Cheng-liang Wang, PhD Postgraduate in Department of Chinese Literature, National Chung Hsing University, 'The Narrative Style in 2030's Science Fictions'
Section D: From Prof [Hsiao-Feng] Chang to Prof [Shi-Kuo] Chang
D1: Hong-chuan Hsiang, PhD Postgraduate in Department of Chinese Literature, National Central University, 'Female Writers and Science Fictions in Taiwan'
D2: Jui-tien Huang, MA Postgraduate in Institute of Chinese Literature, National Sun Yat-sen University, 'On the Relationship Between SF and Humanity Science'
D3: Jyh-arng Lee, Research Assistant in Institute of Atomic and Molecular Sciences, Academia Sinica, 'Information Theory and Futuristic Speculation -- The Scientific Backgrounds of SKC's "The City Trilogy"'
1. 'Chinese' here means the 'Chinese language' or 'Chinese race'.
2. Translated from the blurb in the official web-site of this conference:
4. Hai Hwang, 'Science Fiction: Where Will It Lead?', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 1-16 (p. 2).
7. Ruey-lin Chen, 'The Philosophical Elements of Science Fiction', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 17-41 (p. 18).
10. Shu-chen Chiang, 'The Meaning of Existence and the Historical Necessity: (Mis)reading Shi-Kuo Chang's Postmodernity', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 43-51 (p. 44).
11. Amie Parry & Jen-peng Liu, 'Schadenfreude: Truth, Violence and Surveillance in Lucifer Hung's Science Fiction', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 53-73 (pp. 55-56).
12. Parry & Liu, p. 54.
14. In his English abstract, Lin uses 'revolution', but in this context, 'reform' is more appropriate.
15. Cheng-liang Wang, 'The Narrative Style in 2030's Science Fiction', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 153-164 (p. 163).
16. Hong-chuan Hsiang, 'Female Writers and Science Fictions in Taiwan', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp. 165-175 (p. 167).
17. Arthur Yun-hung Cheng, 'Hi-Tech Superpower Vs Sci-Fi Superpower', in The Anthology of Csfs2003, (2003), pp.97-118 (p. 105).
18. I know Hwang can barely obtain or read English texts, so I phoned him to make sure his source of foreign sf information.
November 7, 2003 06:08 AM 劉、白兩位教授留言：
In your summary of the article that we wrote, you mention that it had been presented at the AAS, but that you “cannot tell” if it is a combination of the two essays we presented there or an extension of one of them. We appreciate your going to the trouble to mention this. Actually, however, at the AAS we did not present the two articles we had originally planned to present because we ended up writing one article together, which was the first draft of the very essay we presented at this sf conference in Taipei. So you don't need to mention the other two titles. We suggest that in the future before sending reports like this out into a public venue, you first check on all your information, especially if you “cannot tell” something from the materials you have at hand. We are easy to contact through our university websites. As it is now, this could be a misleading reference, since those two essays whose titles you mention actually do not exist.
We'd also like to point out that your extensive criticism of the conference, while supported with substantial knowledge of sf literature and criticism, seems somewhat misplaced. You emphasize the scholars' lack of a thorough knowledge of sf, and your condescending tone suggests that you find the scholars themselves at fault for this. However this very lack that you have so astutely exposed also points to the marginalized position of sf in academia (most of us were not hired to research or teach sf and have done this research on our own time out of our own abiding interest in the subject). The difficultly of opening up new, especially less canonical, subjects like sf in turn suggests the larger issue of the marginalized position of the humanities in a contemporary university system that almost requires the humanities to justify their existence by their supposed contribution to some aspect of national development. This in turn is indicative of the quandary of the humanities in NICs like Taiwan, and this is not Taiwan's fault, nor it is the fault of local scholars, but it is the result of complicated imperialist and neocolonial histories that involve many countries. Any of these latter subjects, it seems to us, would be much more worthy object of critique than the conference itself or the local scholars who are trying to contribute to the effort to open up sf in Taiwan as an interdisciplinary field of research worth some time and investment on the part of the universities. The critique you have offered, rather than supporting our effort, could in fact be taken up by anyone who would like to shut this field down, and we don't think you would like to see that happen.
November 7, 2003 09:33 AM 我的回應：
首先要向兩位表達最深的歉意。只由論文集內容與AAS網站上的資料下斷語，而未向兩位教授進一步查證，完全是我的疏失。我會在最快時間內，將正確的資訊轉交給 SF Foundation 和 Locus 雜誌。
兩位教授認真嚴謹的治學態度，在論文中表露無疑，也是我個人深感敬佩的。報導後半的個人意見，並不適用於兩位教授的大作。至於兩位所提出科幻學術界在台 灣的發展困境，我其實也能感同身受。儘管嚴格說來，我並不算是台灣科幻學術圈的一分子，但對於台灣科幻，不論是市場或學術上的發展，一直是我長久以來關注 的焦點。事實上，科幻研究不只在台灣，就算是英美學術界，一直都不是主流的研究範圍。光是從提供科幻學位的學校，如今僅剩敝校（美國甚至還沒有）；研究科 幻的知名學者，像 Donald M. Hassler 教授、敝所的 David Seed 教授等也都具有其他傳統文學或文化研究的專擅領域；科幻學術期刊長久以來也並不多見，研討會一年也就寥寥數場。只是英美的科幻研究，除了對該領域 有興趣的學者參與之外，有一大部分要歸功於科幻類型文化圈內評論者甚至作家的全力投入（甚至有人身兼兩種角色，如 Farah Mendlesohn 教授、Gary Westfahl 教授、James E. Gunn 教授等）。台灣科幻發展長久以來一直未臻理想，其背後因素固然很多，但個人認為不能以開發中國家重科技、輕人文的發展歷程當做主要的解釋。尤其 「科幻」文類在台灣一直被推廣者賦予「推廣科學教育、增進國民科學知能」的「功利」價值情況下，照說不太可能會發展成現在的情況。其實這也是長久以來個人 一直想探討的問題，或許在未來的研究中會對此多加著墨。
然而，不管來自於學術界或是科幻類型文化圈的研究，對於科幻類型的認識與嚴謹的治學態度則是始終不變的。科幻大師Lester del Rey不過在他的科幻史 _The World of Science Fiction_ 中把 _Frankenstein_ 一書的出版年列為1817，就被另一位科幻大師Brian Aldiss斥為「連個 _Frankenstein_ 出版年份都搞不清楚的人，有什麼資格談論科幻的起源？」我們不需要像Aldiss如此嚴苛，但基本的功課和態度還是要顧到。很遺憾地，在目前台灣科幻研究 中，還是存在有這樣的問題，這正是我報導評論的重點。當然我自己未經查證就寫出錯誤的資訊，也是一個很大的反例。在此再度向兩位教授深深致歉。
後學 林翰昌 敬上
November 12, 2003 04:03 AM 兩位教授第二次發言：
對於”A REPORT OF CSFS2003”（以下簡稱” Report”）這篇文章，我們之前作了一些回應，而作者Han-Chang Lin也立即給予了相當誠懇的答覆（俱見於網站「迴響」），我們相當感謝作者回應的誠意，而且，該回應使得我們想到，有一些想法可以更進一步說明，交換意見。謹在此提出。
事實上，”Report”一文提出的批評，以及對此地科幻論述環境的侷限感，我們大致可以同意。但我們想要進一步思考的，是書寫政治的問題。這是一 篇向英文世界報導台灣第一次「中文」科幻研究會議的文章，報導者的位置與這篇報導的意義，與其政治性，我們認為必須考慮。報導內容將批評焦點放在此地學者 對於西方科幻的不熟悉上，最後提出的建議，也是認為此地科幻推廣或出版者需要引進更多西方科幻以增進台灣讀者/作者/評論對科幻的認識。我們認為需要考慮 的是：這樣的意見，以英文向英文世界說，意義何在？對於台灣科幻環境，又會帶來什麼影響？對於英文科幻讀者而言，可以從這篇報導獲得什麼樣的知識？可以藉 此更了解台灣的中文科幻研究有何差異性特色嗎？可以藉此看到「西方科幻」以外的科幻特色嗎？可以在平常習慣的「大西方vs小得幾乎看不見的台灣」的印象之 外，重新獲得什麼挑戰性的洞見嗎？「西方」人還需要更多知道世界上哪個小地方最大的缺點是欠缺對「西方」的了解嗎？我們瞭解，作者長久以來對於科幻的關 注，以及對於台灣中文科幻發展狀況的掌握，我們在此提出這些問題，其實也是由於這是我們正在思考的問題，而權力不平衡的問題，也是科幻作品中經常觸及的議 題，我們也正打算在修改版的英文論文中，針對這些議題提出進一步的討論。在此要特別謝謝Han-Chang Lin此次討論帶來的進一步思索的機會。
我們在先前的回應中，認為單純的指責在地學者，尤其指責重點在於對西方科幻不夠了解，成為每個個人的學術道德或能力問題，不如從不平衡權力關係造成 的科技霸權、西方霸權等等，做批判性的分析。我們對於把科幻服務國家與科普當成科幻推廣的主要說辭，固然不滿意，但是，再進一步想想目前整個不平衡的狀 況，這個說辭或許正是此地把科幻推上台面最有用的藉口或策略，雖然我們的目標是不停留在此。事實上，在交大科幻會議當天，這個說辭也已經被問題化了。再 者，「西方」或「科學」在這些中文科幻研究裏，可能也有著策略性的用法，不是僅有一個意義。另外，如果對當天會場的情況多有一些了解，也許，報導中更能增 加一些在地性的跨學科互動的張力，甚至性別、跨性別議題介入科幻會場等等特色，這些都是相當具有在地活力的議題。事實上，這樣一個跨學科甚至跨學院內外的 會議，會產生的互動張力是可以預期的，很多人有抱怨，很多人面對了自己以外立場的挑戰，很多人重新思考科學與人文，很多人被迫重新思考科幻到底是什麼，等 等等，這是一個改變的開始，而比較不是成果的呈現，因為這個領域幾乎還沒有形成。
關於 Han-Chang Lin 在回覆中所提的「嚴謹」問題，我們想補充的是，治學的嚴謹絕不在於嚴苛地指責別人「不知道我所知道的事情」，事實上，嚴苛地在別人的作品裏指出「我 知道而他竟然不知道」，把弄錯年代或人名地名當成學問的指標，這樣的人可能到處都不缺乏，只是，我們並不認為這是學問嚴謹的指標。科幻在西方學院，當然也 是邊緣位置，但是，西方科幻學者與台灣的不同，不能只以對西方科幻了解多少來比較，那不是公平的遊戲。最後，我們衷心感謝 Han-Chang Lin 對於科幻研究心得與成果的分享，也珍惜這次機會，交換一些不同的意見。
November 16, 2003 02:52 PM 我的二度回應：
兩位教授提出對「西方霸權」的看法，個人大致上同意。不過要進一步說明的是，在台灣科幻發展中，「西方科幻」不管就文本傳播或觀念植入這兩方面，一 直是受到扭曲和壓抑的。台灣科幻的發展有極大部分的奠基於核心推廣者的觀念與作為；他們對「西方」的詮釋（包括選擇性引進的科幻觀念與文本），幾乎是在地 科幻同好或學者了解「西方」唯一管道（在此先假設同好與學者並不具備充份掌握語文工具的能力）。「西方科幻」在台灣，僅是工具式的存在，而成為不可知的 「她者」，亦或和此間對西方影視（當然包括科幻影視）的印象相結合，成為文化入侵的媒體「巨獸」。在這種情況下，在地科幻學者所認識的「西方科幻」和真實 的西方科幻有著極大的差距。此時率爾對「西方」進行分析研究，對於「西方」而言何嘗不是個不公平的遊戲。提出「引進西方科幻」的論點，主要著眼於將西方科 幻「去神祕化」，還原西方科幻的位置，而不是貶抑在地學者的研究苦心，希冀「西方」成為另一個台灣科幻的主宰。科幻中關於「人類」與「她者」間鬥爭的題 材，似乎可以成為從台灣看「西方」科幻和從「西方」看台灣科幻的類比對象。從互不瞭解萌生敵意→引發全面戰爭；到彼此產生尊重式的瞭解→謀求共生共存共榮 之道，三○年代到八○、九○年代探討同一主題的科幻書寫，也許提供了對於此問題的解答。再者，我們也可以從認識西方科幻的過程中，培養從科幻的角度看科幻 的觀點，更加認清台灣科幻的特質與發展的困境，進而思索台灣科幻的未來。
其實這隱含了另一個值得討論的議題：台灣科幻研究者的關注點在哪裡？富有個人風格與反映在地政治社會文化現實的台灣科幻書寫？從神話到傳奇到小說的 中國幻想文學創作脈絡傳統對台灣科幻書寫的影響？以個人在研討會上和課堂上與西方學者討論交流的粗淺經驗來看，這兩者其實都是西方學者對於台灣或中文科幻 最想要了解的部分，也是只有在地學者能夠從事，西方完全無法「侵入」的部分。就前者言，兩位教授的論文，與劉紀蕙教授對林燿德《時間龍》的專著分析，堪稱 此類研究的典範。台灣科幻創作的鼎盛時期，不乏值得專論探討的作家作品，似乎是在地學者的努力方向。就後者言，晚清到五四的研究已經成形，如何再向前向後 開展，形成中文幻想書寫的完整脈絡，則有待研究者更進一步的分析。藉由學界的努力，加上擴大與西方科幻學界的交流，或許可以讓西方對台灣科幻有更進一步的 了解與認識。
December 8, 2003 06:07 AM 副總舵主的發言：