What do you think?
Rate this book
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination
Note: The electronic version of this title contains over thirty additional, illuminating eBook-exclusive illustrations by the author.
At a time when speculative fiction seems less and less far-fetched, Margaret Atwood lends her distinctive voice and singular point of view to the genre in a series of essays that brilliantly illuminates the essential truths about the modern world. This is an exploration of her relationship with the literary form we have come to know as "science fiction,” a relationship that has been lifelong, stretching from her days as a child reader in the 1940s, through her time as a graduate student at Harvard, where she worked on the Victorian ancestor of the form, and continuing as a writer and reviewer. This book brings together her three heretofore unpublished Ellmann Lectures from 2010: "Flying Rabbits," which begins with Atwood's early rabbit superhero creations, and goes on to speculate about masks, capes, weakling alter egos, and Things with Wings; "Burning Bushes," which follows her into Victorian otherlands and beyond; and "Dire Cartographies," which investigates Utopias and Dystopias. In Other Worlds also includes some of Atwood's key reviews and thoughts about the form. Among those writers discussed are Marge Piercy, Rider Haggard, Ursula Le Guin, Ishiguro, Bryher, Huxley, and Jonathan Swift. She elucidates the differences (as she sees them) between "science fiction" proper, and "speculative fiction," as well as between "sword and sorcery/fantasy" and "slipstream fiction." For all readers who have loved The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake, and The Year of the Flood, In Other Worlds is a must.
At a time when speculative fiction seems less and less far-fetched, Margaret Atwood lends her distinctive voice and singular point of view to the genre in a series of essays that brilliantly illuminates the essential truths about the modern world. This is an exploration of her relationship with the literary form we have come to know as "science fiction,” a relationship that has been lifelong, stretching from her days as a child reader in the 1940s, through her time as a graduate student at Harvard, where she worked on the Victorian ancestor of the form, and continuing as a writer and reviewer. This book brings together her three heretofore unpublished Ellmann Lectures from 2010: "Flying Rabbits," which begins with Atwood's early rabbit superhero creations, and goes on to speculate about masks, capes, weakling alter egos, and Things with Wings; "Burning Bushes," which follows her into Victorian otherlands and beyond; and "Dire Cartographies," which investigates Utopias and Dystopias. In Other Worlds also includes some of Atwood's key reviews and thoughts about the form. Among those writers discussed are Marge Piercy, Rider Haggard, Ursula Le Guin, Ishiguro, Bryher, Huxley, and Jonathan Swift. She elucidates the differences (as she sees them) between "science fiction" proper, and "speculative fiction," as well as between "sword and sorcery/fantasy" and "slipstream fiction." For all readers who have loved The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake, and The Year of the Flood, In Other Worlds is a must.
From the Hardcover edition.
274 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 11, 2011
184 people are currently reading
4528 people want to read
About the author
Margaret Atwood
661 books88.5k followersMargaret Atwood was born in 1939 in Ottawa and grew up in northern Ontario, Quebec, and Toronto. She received her undergraduate degree from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and her master's degree from Radcliffe College.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children’s literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children’s literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 366 reviews
June 2, 2019
Archetypal Exploration
There are two fundamental principles in Jungian psychology: 1) The unconscious part of the mind is indistinguishable from reality, and 2) The self, composed of the conscious and unconscious mind, is indistinguishable from God. As a self-confessed Jungian, Margaret Atwood, undoubtedly unconsciously, employs these two principles wonderfully in her commentary on Science Fiction, In Other Worlds.
Science fiction as a genre is of course a Jungian playground in which primitive archetypes from ancient myths to childhood fears can be given free rein. The constraints of existing technology, social conventions, time, and even fundamental physics can be done away with to form an alternative world which, as long as it is consistent within itself, can be a satisfying experience.
For me, and I think perhaps for Atwood as well, the best alternative sci-fi worlds don’t necessarily have a dystopian or utopian edge, even if they communicate a political or social message. They just are. And what makes them interesting is how a sensory, reflective entity (not necessarily a human being) makes its way in some fundamentally altered set of conditions. The archetypes bend and twist to accommodate these conditions, but ultimately, since they are at the limits of our imagination, they remain identifiable; hence we are able to comprehend and even empathise with otherwise alien creatures from other planets, other times, other eruptions of the multiverse.
So in a sense sci-fi is therapy, a non-threatening exploration of the things crawling around at the very bottom of our collective unconscious, the existence of which is of course confirmed by the worldwide success of works like Star Wars and Harry Potter, not to mention Frankenstein and Superman. The technique is simple: we allow Jungian principle 1 to operate without any of the usual epistemological worries that we carry around with us as a matter of course; then we perform an act of imaginative blasphemy by employing principle 2 - not to make too fine a point, we play God and re-create creation.
Why? I suppose the best answer, and the answer implied by Atwood, is because we can. No, that's too passive: because we must. We are, as social as well as conscious beings, programmed to explore the alternative arrangements of relationships in creation that are contained in sci-fi. Perhaps our myths of origin in sacred scriptures, as ancient as history allows us to recall, are expressions of the same facts of human existence as the superheroes of Marvel comics. (Such a comparison isn’t intended to be disrespectful. In fact, it might be a key to re-invigorating interest in a sacred literature that appears simply incomprehensible to most people).
Atwood’s identification and sifting of the sci-fi archetypes is masterful. She takes the reader from Inanna, the life and sex goddess of Mesopotamia, through the Greek messenger-god Hermes and Shakespeare's Puck to the Wizard of Oz and Plastic Man of the 1940's. And that's just on the topic of flying.
For Atwood the classic Beowulf has a clear association with that truly terrible 1958 British film, The Creeping Eye, aka The Trollenberg Terror. This is an association which, once made, is burned into one's literary psyche - to the benefit of both works I think. Similarly, it's not an enormous leap in imagination from the talking trees of the film Avatar, to the Burning Bush of Genesis. Every connection enhances appreciation of the things connected. This might well be the primary spiritual function of literature, of any sort but particularly that in which the tropes used point beyond themselves in the manner of Russian Orthodox icons. In other words, sci-fi.
Atwood's case for sci-fi as the modern continuation of Renaissance humanistic thinking is interesting. Works like Bladerunner, The Island of Dr Moreau, and Star Trek force a consideration of what it means to be human. As does any purported change in technology or even fundamental physics, as in The Matrix.
The theological import of much sci-fi needs hardly be argued. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Perelandra are popular enough examples to make the point. Less obviously, theology also pervades books like Atwood's own The Handmaid's Tale, not least by exposing the inherent sexism and rationalisation of power by the powerful in much of what passes for talk about God.*
There's no doubt that Atwood does both Jung and Sci-Fi proud in this little book of almost throw-away, thought-provoking thoughts. After all, what else can you do, if you've read virtually everything important ever written, but connect it, probably involuntarily, to everything else? She does it with such ease.
*See for example: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
There are two fundamental principles in Jungian psychology: 1) The unconscious part of the mind is indistinguishable from reality, and 2) The self, composed of the conscious and unconscious mind, is indistinguishable from God. As a self-confessed Jungian, Margaret Atwood, undoubtedly unconsciously, employs these two principles wonderfully in her commentary on Science Fiction, In Other Worlds.
Science fiction as a genre is of course a Jungian playground in which primitive archetypes from ancient myths to childhood fears can be given free rein. The constraints of existing technology, social conventions, time, and even fundamental physics can be done away with to form an alternative world which, as long as it is consistent within itself, can be a satisfying experience.
For me, and I think perhaps for Atwood as well, the best alternative sci-fi worlds don’t necessarily have a dystopian or utopian edge, even if they communicate a political or social message. They just are. And what makes them interesting is how a sensory, reflective entity (not necessarily a human being) makes its way in some fundamentally altered set of conditions. The archetypes bend and twist to accommodate these conditions, but ultimately, since they are at the limits of our imagination, they remain identifiable; hence we are able to comprehend and even empathise with otherwise alien creatures from other planets, other times, other eruptions of the multiverse.
So in a sense sci-fi is therapy, a non-threatening exploration of the things crawling around at the very bottom of our collective unconscious, the existence of which is of course confirmed by the worldwide success of works like Star Wars and Harry Potter, not to mention Frankenstein and Superman. The technique is simple: we allow Jungian principle 1 to operate without any of the usual epistemological worries that we carry around with us as a matter of course; then we perform an act of imaginative blasphemy by employing principle 2 - not to make too fine a point, we play God and re-create creation.
Why? I suppose the best answer, and the answer implied by Atwood, is because we can. No, that's too passive: because we must. We are, as social as well as conscious beings, programmed to explore the alternative arrangements of relationships in creation that are contained in sci-fi. Perhaps our myths of origin in sacred scriptures, as ancient as history allows us to recall, are expressions of the same facts of human existence as the superheroes of Marvel comics. (Such a comparison isn’t intended to be disrespectful. In fact, it might be a key to re-invigorating interest in a sacred literature that appears simply incomprehensible to most people).
Atwood’s identification and sifting of the sci-fi archetypes is masterful. She takes the reader from Inanna, the life and sex goddess of Mesopotamia, through the Greek messenger-god Hermes and Shakespeare's Puck to the Wizard of Oz and Plastic Man of the 1940's. And that's just on the topic of flying.
For Atwood the classic Beowulf has a clear association with that truly terrible 1958 British film, The Creeping Eye, aka The Trollenberg Terror. This is an association which, once made, is burned into one's literary psyche - to the benefit of both works I think. Similarly, it's not an enormous leap in imagination from the talking trees of the film Avatar, to the Burning Bush of Genesis. Every connection enhances appreciation of the things connected. This might well be the primary spiritual function of literature, of any sort but particularly that in which the tropes used point beyond themselves in the manner of Russian Orthodox icons. In other words, sci-fi.
Atwood's case for sci-fi as the modern continuation of Renaissance humanistic thinking is interesting. Works like Bladerunner, The Island of Dr Moreau, and Star Trek force a consideration of what it means to be human. As does any purported change in technology or even fundamental physics, as in The Matrix.
The theological import of much sci-fi needs hardly be argued. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Perelandra are popular enough examples to make the point. Less obviously, theology also pervades books like Atwood's own The Handmaid's Tale, not least by exposing the inherent sexism and rationalisation of power by the powerful in much of what passes for talk about God.*
There's no doubt that Atwood does both Jung and Sci-Fi proud in this little book of almost throw-away, thought-provoking thoughts. After all, what else can you do, if you've read virtually everything important ever written, but connect it, probably involuntarily, to everything else? She does it with such ease.
*See for example: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
October 20, 2011
This is basically a collection of previously published bits and pieces of science fiction and science fiction-related writing of Atwood's.
The first (and the most interesting) part of the book is more or less a transcript of the author's lectures which include notes on the evolution of her interest in and understanding of SF, her musings about the connections between science fiction and mythology and religion, and some insight into the intentions and inspirations behind her own speculative fiction - The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood.
Part two consists of a series of critical reviews of significant SF works. I admit to skipping all of these essays but two - Atwood's responses to Ursula K. Le Guin's The Birthday of the World and Other Stories and Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. Both are insightful, affectionate and complementary.
And, finally, in part three are presented Atwood's 5 very short SF stories, which are mainly unremarkable, except the one that is an excerpt from The Blind Assassin.
What left the most impression on me, however, is the introduction to this collection. In it, Margaret Atwood responds to Ursula K. Le Guin's very harsh critique of Atwood's choice to call her works speculative fiction and not science fiction. Now, if the whole brouhaha was only about semantics, I wouldn't even care. Just a glance at how books are shelved here, on Goodreads, is a proof enough that what one person understands to be SF, another might categorize as fantasy, etc. But Le Guin goes further and accuses Atwood of deliberately refusing to call herself a SF writer "to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders" and assuming that "she doesn't want the literary bigots to shove her into the literary ghetto."
I have a very high regard for Ursula K. Le Guin, but this attack of hers left me disappointed. It is unpleasant to see two of my favorite and undeniably feminist female writers to be a part of this squabble. Atwood, however, handles these accusations with class, explains her position and even goes as far as to dedicate this book to Ursula.
Evidently, they have this conflict resolved, but the bad taste in my mouth still lingers...
The first (and the most interesting) part of the book is more or less a transcript of the author's lectures which include notes on the evolution of her interest in and understanding of SF, her musings about the connections between science fiction and mythology and religion, and some insight into the intentions and inspirations behind her own speculative fiction - The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood.
Part two consists of a series of critical reviews of significant SF works. I admit to skipping all of these essays but two - Atwood's responses to Ursula K. Le Guin's The Birthday of the World and Other Stories and Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. Both are insightful, affectionate and complementary.
And, finally, in part three are presented Atwood's 5 very short SF stories, which are mainly unremarkable, except the one that is an excerpt from The Blind Assassin.
What left the most impression on me, however, is the introduction to this collection. In it, Margaret Atwood responds to Ursula K. Le Guin's very harsh critique of Atwood's choice to call her works speculative fiction and not science fiction. Now, if the whole brouhaha was only about semantics, I wouldn't even care. Just a glance at how books are shelved here, on Goodreads, is a proof enough that what one person understands to be SF, another might categorize as fantasy, etc. But Le Guin goes further and accuses Atwood of deliberately refusing to call herself a SF writer "to protect her novels from being relegated to a genre still shunned by hidebound readers, reviewers and prize-awarders" and assuming that "she doesn't want the literary bigots to shove her into the literary ghetto."
I have a very high regard for Ursula K. Le Guin, but this attack of hers left me disappointed. It is unpleasant to see two of my favorite and undeniably feminist female writers to be a part of this squabble. Atwood, however, handles these accusations with class, explains her position and even goes as far as to dedicate this book to Ursula.
Evidently, they have this conflict resolved, but the bad taste in my mouth still lingers...
August 9, 2021
“(…) it’s always encouraging to be told that it is intellectually acceptable to read the sorts of things that you like reading anyway.”
If you look at my GR shelves for a brief moment, you will see that I have a strong affection for what some people (hello, Mr. Ian McEwan!) snobbishly refer to as “genre” fiction. I recently went to a bookstore, a real brick and mortar one, for the first time in almost 18 months: this was exciting in and of itself, but I was also very pleased to see that the wall where genre fiction was shelved declared in large, proud letters “Littérature de l’imaginaire”. Yeah, baby! I like that because genres such as sci-fi, horror, fantasy, etc. are not always easy to define, or keep straight at times. They bleed into each other’s taxonomy, create new weird little hybrids with lovely names (silkpunk!). The only thing they end up truly having in common is that their author imagined a world that was different from the one they lived in.
Shocking no one, Margaret Atwood knows more than a little bit about that, and having loved so much of her speculative fiction work, I was quite pleased to come upon this collection of essays on the topic of science fiction and literature of the imagination under various forms. I know some people get quite irritated at her because she doesn’t classify her own work as sci-fi and insists on the term “speculative fiction”, but in talking with fans of the various “littératures de l’imagination”, I have personally come to the conclusion that sci-fi is a lot like punk or porn: no one can adequately define it in a way that satisfies everybody, but we all know it when we encounter it. My point is that reading those essays makes it easier to understand where Ms. Atwood draws the line. I also really enjoyed her thoughts on a selection of SF works that I now feel a need to re-read, with her perspective as an added tool to my experience.
Not unlike the little collection of Le Guin’s essays I just wrapped up (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I don’t think this book is for people who have never read anything by Atwood before: it would be an awkward place to begin. But for those who enjoy her work and want to understand how she thinks about it a bit better, these essays are very interesting, especially in regards to utopias/dystopias. There is also a section of literary criticism on various and often quite famous works of sci-fi/speculative fiction. I was also really pleased to see draw the parallels between things like superhero graphic novel fiction and mythology; my friend Erika has a theory that everything written in the past thousand years is, to a level or another, fanfiction, and it’s a position I find hard to argue with.
If you read a lot of SF and are interested in its nuts and bolts, and are curious what a very erudite woman has to say on the topic, then I would pick up this book!
If you look at my GR shelves for a brief moment, you will see that I have a strong affection for what some people (hello, Mr. Ian McEwan!) snobbishly refer to as “genre” fiction. I recently went to a bookstore, a real brick and mortar one, for the first time in almost 18 months: this was exciting in and of itself, but I was also very pleased to see that the wall where genre fiction was shelved declared in large, proud letters “Littérature de l’imaginaire”. Yeah, baby! I like that because genres such as sci-fi, horror, fantasy, etc. are not always easy to define, or keep straight at times. They bleed into each other’s taxonomy, create new weird little hybrids with lovely names (silkpunk!). The only thing they end up truly having in common is that their author imagined a world that was different from the one they lived in.
Shocking no one, Margaret Atwood knows more than a little bit about that, and having loved so much of her speculative fiction work, I was quite pleased to come upon this collection of essays on the topic of science fiction and literature of the imagination under various forms. I know some people get quite irritated at her because she doesn’t classify her own work as sci-fi and insists on the term “speculative fiction”, but in talking with fans of the various “littératures de l’imagination”, I have personally come to the conclusion that sci-fi is a lot like punk or porn: no one can adequately define it in a way that satisfies everybody, but we all know it when we encounter it. My point is that reading those essays makes it easier to understand where Ms. Atwood draws the line. I also really enjoyed her thoughts on a selection of SF works that I now feel a need to re-read, with her perspective as an added tool to my experience.
Not unlike the little collection of Le Guin’s essays I just wrapped up (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), I don’t think this book is for people who have never read anything by Atwood before: it would be an awkward place to begin. But for those who enjoy her work and want to understand how she thinks about it a bit better, these essays are very interesting, especially in regards to utopias/dystopias. There is also a section of literary criticism on various and often quite famous works of sci-fi/speculative fiction. I was also really pleased to see draw the parallels between things like superhero graphic novel fiction and mythology; my friend Erika has a theory that everything written in the past thousand years is, to a level or another, fanfiction, and it’s a position I find hard to argue with.
If you read a lot of SF and are interested in its nuts and bolts, and are curious what a very erudite woman has to say on the topic, then I would pick up this book!
January 9, 2020
This is a thoroughly enjoyable book.
In Part 1, Margaret Atwood tells of her childhood and University reading of the old sci-fi books. Her insights and thoughts are interesting and humorous. Her depth of knowledge shows throughout. This is one smart lady.
Part 2 is a collection of essays on specific sci-fi works. There's a number of books that I've never heard of but will be adding to my TBR list to hopefully find a copy. Showing the connection between old Sci-Fi, new Sci-Fi and ourselves.
Part 3 is a collection of 5 short sci-fi stories; all of them good.
I loved learning of Margaret Atwood's sci-fi roots. Her love of sci-fi goes back to her young childhood. I laughed (and empathized) at her reaction to Animal Farm. And yet....she continued reading sci-fi with relish and enjoyment.
In Part 1, Margaret Atwood tells of her childhood and University reading of the old sci-fi books. Her insights and thoughts are interesting and humorous. Her depth of knowledge shows throughout. This is one smart lady.
Part 2 is a collection of essays on specific sci-fi works. There's a number of books that I've never heard of but will be adding to my TBR list to hopefully find a copy. Showing the connection between old Sci-Fi, new Sci-Fi and ourselves.
Part 3 is a collection of 5 short sci-fi stories; all of them good.
I loved learning of Margaret Atwood's sci-fi roots. Her love of sci-fi goes back to her young childhood. I laughed (and empathized) at her reaction to Animal Farm. And yet....she continued reading sci-fi with relish and enjoyment.
November 30, 2011
Margaret Atwood is a bit like my friend Lil--she is both right AND left-brained. She writes like a dream and knows her way around science and technology.
Many people ask Atwood why she does not like the term "science fiction" for her work. She calls three of her works "ustopias." Of one, "The Handmaid's Tale," she writes that she "would not put into this book anything that humankind had not already done, somewhere, sometime, or for which it did not already have the tools."
Later in the book in an essay on H.G. Wells, Atwood notes that science fiction "as a term was unknown to Wells; it did not make an appearance until the 1930s, in America, during the golden age of bug-eyed monsters and girls in brass brassieres." In a different essay she expands on the topic of women in metal bras, referencing Maidenform, Norse mythology, Bugs Bunny and Madonna.
I love how Atwood regards schlocky pulp fiction, myth, history and comic strips all with an equally analytical eye, taking us with her on a journey through her life as a reader and a writer.
Many people ask Atwood why she does not like the term "science fiction" for her work. She calls three of her works "ustopias." Of one, "The Handmaid's Tale," she writes that she "would not put into this book anything that humankind had not already done, somewhere, sometime, or for which it did not already have the tools."
Later in the book in an essay on H.G. Wells, Atwood notes that science fiction "as a term was unknown to Wells; it did not make an appearance until the 1930s, in America, during the golden age of bug-eyed monsters and girls in brass brassieres." In a different essay she expands on the topic of women in metal bras, referencing Maidenform, Norse mythology, Bugs Bunny and Madonna.
I love how Atwood regards schlocky pulp fiction, myth, history and comic strips all with an equally analytical eye, taking us with her on a journey through her life as a reader and a writer.
October 22, 2011
"In Other Worlds is not a catalogue of science fiction, a grand theory about it, or a literary history of it. It is not a treatise, it is not definitive, it is not exhaustive, it is not canonical. It is not the work of a practising academic or an official guardian of a body of knowledge. Rather it is an exploration of my own lifelong relationship with a literary form, or forms, or subforms, both as reader and as writer."
I'm still kicking myself for not being able to make it to Margaret Atwood's Ellman Lectures at Emory University a few years ago, where she lectured on science fiction and her relationship with the genre. Luckily for me, Atwood decided to do us all a favor and put those lectures, along with other essays on science fiction, into a single volume for fans like me to buy on the day it came out (Prompting a minor panic attack when I couldn't find the book on the New Releases shelf at Barnes and Noble, which resulted in me getting a staff member to retrieve the single copy from the back. Do not get between me and a Margaret Atwood book, is the lesson).
As the introduction states, this is a very personal collection, detailing Atwood's own interest in science fiction and how her interest began as a child, continued into her college years, and culminated in her writing three science fiction/speculative fiction novels. She describes reading Animal Farm as a child without being aware of the symbolism, escaping her literature thesis by going to cheesy B-movie showings as a college student, and the process of creating the futuristic worlds for The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake. And then just for fun, she throws in a few short fiction pieces at the end that are inspired by what the book discusses.
I loved this, not just for how thoughtfully Atwood discusses and dissects such cheap B-movie tropes like mad scientists and sexy demon women, but for how broad the scope of these essays are. She discusses Never Let Me Go, the relationship between devils and evil aliens, 1984, Brave New World, Avatar, fictional maps, superheroes, gene splicing, and HG Wells. Did I mention superheroes? Because oh my god, you guys, Margaret Atwood discussing superheroes is my new favorite thing. She does a Jungian analysis of Batman using the three big villains - the Joker, the Penguin, and Catwoman - and does such a good job analyzing Robin that for the first time I didn't utterly hate the character:
"Then there's Robin, the Boy Wonder, who is Bruce's ward. Is Bruce gay? Don't even think about it. From the point of view of we mythosophists, Robin is an elemental spirit, like Shakespeare's Puck and Ariel - note the bird name, which links him to air. His function in the plot is to aid the benevolent master trickster, Batman, with his plans. From the point of view of we Jungians, however, Robin is a Peter Pan figure - he never grows up - and he represents the repressed child within Bruce Wayne, whose parents, you'll recall, were murdered when he was very young, thus stunting Bruce's emotional growth."
I'll be honest: I never thought I'd see the day when a multiple-award-winning Serious Author was discussing Batman with a completely straight face. And that, I think, is the central idea behind this collection: that the stories of aliens and mad scientists and superheroes and magic, so frequently dismissed as pulpy trash, deserve to be regarded with just as much respect and thoughtfulness as traditional Great Literature. Stories of aliens taking over the world and sexy vampires have a rich and far-reaching literary ancestry, and many of the tropes that define science fiction can be found in the kind of books that are taken much more seriously than anything involving monsters and made-up worlds.
Summary: Science Fiction is legit, guys, so you best respect. The Atwood commands it.
I'm still kicking myself for not being able to make it to Margaret Atwood's Ellman Lectures at Emory University a few years ago, where she lectured on science fiction and her relationship with the genre. Luckily for me, Atwood decided to do us all a favor and put those lectures, along with other essays on science fiction, into a single volume for fans like me to buy on the day it came out (Prompting a minor panic attack when I couldn't find the book on the New Releases shelf at Barnes and Noble, which resulted in me getting a staff member to retrieve the single copy from the back. Do not get between me and a Margaret Atwood book, is the lesson).
As the introduction states, this is a very personal collection, detailing Atwood's own interest in science fiction and how her interest began as a child, continued into her college years, and culminated in her writing three science fiction/speculative fiction novels. She describes reading Animal Farm as a child without being aware of the symbolism, escaping her literature thesis by going to cheesy B-movie showings as a college student, and the process of creating the futuristic worlds for The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake. And then just for fun, she throws in a few short fiction pieces at the end that are inspired by what the book discusses.
I loved this, not just for how thoughtfully Atwood discusses and dissects such cheap B-movie tropes like mad scientists and sexy demon women, but for how broad the scope of these essays are. She discusses Never Let Me Go, the relationship between devils and evil aliens, 1984, Brave New World, Avatar, fictional maps, superheroes, gene splicing, and HG Wells. Did I mention superheroes? Because oh my god, you guys, Margaret Atwood discussing superheroes is my new favorite thing. She does a Jungian analysis of Batman using the three big villains - the Joker, the Penguin, and Catwoman - and does such a good job analyzing Robin that for the first time I didn't utterly hate the character:
"Then there's Robin, the Boy Wonder, who is Bruce's ward. Is Bruce gay? Don't even think about it. From the point of view of we mythosophists, Robin is an elemental spirit, like Shakespeare's Puck and Ariel - note the bird name, which links him to air. His function in the plot is to aid the benevolent master trickster, Batman, with his plans. From the point of view of we Jungians, however, Robin is a Peter Pan figure - he never grows up - and he represents the repressed child within Bruce Wayne, whose parents, you'll recall, were murdered when he was very young, thus stunting Bruce's emotional growth."
I'll be honest: I never thought I'd see the day when a multiple-award-winning Serious Author was discussing Batman with a completely straight face. And that, I think, is the central idea behind this collection: that the stories of aliens and mad scientists and superheroes and magic, so frequently dismissed as pulpy trash, deserve to be regarded with just as much respect and thoughtfulness as traditional Great Literature. Stories of aliens taking over the world and sexy vampires have a rich and far-reaching literary ancestry, and many of the tropes that define science fiction can be found in the kind of books that are taken much more seriously than anything involving monsters and made-up worlds.
Summary: Science Fiction is legit, guys, so you best respect. The Atwood commands it.
March 19, 2017
I’m continuing with my promise of reading more Margaret Atwood, this time with something quite different. If last time I read Alias Grace which for me was a pleasant change of pace from the usual speculative fiction I grew expecting from Margaret, now I’m moving to the realm of non-fiction with this collection of essays, some short-stories and thoughts from the one and only Margaret Atwood.
The title of the book, In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination, says it all. This is a book about science fiction, Margaret’s relationship with science fiction and how it helped transform her in the writer that she is today. It analyzes science fiction as a genre, what is the criteria that a book has to follow in order to be classified as science fiction.
When did science fiction originate? When did FICTION originate? What pieces of literature influenced our current science fiction the most? Why do people feel the need to write, and for that matter why do we love reading so much? This book has a lot of question but it also has a lot of answer, answers that are beautifully laid.
It was inspiring, it gave voice to some of the ideas and opinion I had about science fiction and books in general, ideas that because I suck at writing I could have never enunciate the way Margaret Atwood did. It also offered me a different perspective and understanding of her books, and some other famous science fiction books. In some of her essays she talks about The Handmaid’s Tale, what inspired her to write it, some of the criticism the book received, how it almost got banned and more. She talked about Oryx and Crake and about The Year of the Flood (too bad this book was released before MaddAddam was published because I would have loved to hear what she had to say about it).
Besides her books, she also talks about 1984 (which was the main inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale), War of the Worlds, Brave new World, The Martian Chronicles, Never Let Me Go and many more. It’s her analysis of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro that stuck with me, because it made me appreciate the book more by pointing out things that I did notice but never managed to realize what their significance was.
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination is a love letter from Margaret Atwood to science fiction and the only reason it gets 4 point something stars is because I wanted more, there were some essays that felt too short.
The title of the book, In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination, says it all. This is a book about science fiction, Margaret’s relationship with science fiction and how it helped transform her in the writer that she is today. It analyzes science fiction as a genre, what is the criteria that a book has to follow in order to be classified as science fiction.
“Anything that doesn't fit this mode has been shoved into an area of lesser solemnity called 'genre fiction,' and it is here that the spy thriller and the crime story and the adventure story and the supernatural tale and the science fiction, however excellently written, must reside, sent to their rooms, as it were, for the misdemeanor of being enjoyable in what is considered a meretricious way. They invent, and we all know they invent, at least up to a point, and they are, therefore, not about 'real life,' which ought to lack coincidences and weirdness and action-adventure, unless the adventure story is about war, of course, where anything goes, and they are, therefore, not solid.”
When did science fiction originate? When did FICTION originate? What pieces of literature influenced our current science fiction the most? Why do people feel the need to write, and for that matter why do we love reading so much? This book has a lot of question but it also has a lot of answer, answers that are beautifully laid.
It was inspiring, it gave voice to some of the ideas and opinion I had about science fiction and books in general, ideas that because I suck at writing I could have never enunciate the way Margaret Atwood did. It also offered me a different perspective and understanding of her books, and some other famous science fiction books. In some of her essays she talks about The Handmaid’s Tale, what inspired her to write it, some of the criticism the book received, how it almost got banned and more. She talked about Oryx and Crake and about The Year of the Flood (too bad this book was released before MaddAddam was published because I would have loved to hear what she had to say about it).
Besides her books, she also talks about 1984 (which was the main inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale), War of the Worlds, Brave new World, The Martian Chronicles, Never Let Me Go and many more. It’s her analysis of Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro that stuck with me, because it made me appreciate the book more by pointing out things that I did notice but never managed to realize what their significance was.
In Other Worlds: SF and the Human Imagination is a love letter from Margaret Atwood to science fiction and the only reason it gets 4 point something stars is because I wanted more, there were some essays that felt too short.
Read
May 20, 2017Başka Dünyalar: Bilimkurgu ve Hayalgücü, Atwood’un da belirttiği gibi bilimkurguyla ilgili teorik bir metin, bilimsel bir çalışma ya da açıklayıcı bir eser değil kesinlikle. Atwood eserinde bilimkurguya hayatı boyunca kurduğu ilişkiyi keşfe çıkıyor ve bu yolculukta bizim de kendisine eşlik etmemizi istiyor.
Başka Dünyalar üç bölümden oluşuyor. Kitaba da adını ve ağırlığını veren ilk bölüm Atwood’un bir çocuk, bir lisans öğrencisi ve bir araştırmacı/yazar olarak bilimkurgu ile kurduğu ilişki üzerinden türe ait değerlendirmelerini içeriyor. İlk bölümle birlikte kitabın “yeni” kısmı da sonlanmış oluyor.
İkinci bölümde Atwood’un daha önce çeşitli bilimkurgu eserleri hakkında yazmış olduğu eleştiri, giriş yazısı veya konuşmalardan oluşan bir derleme ile karşılaşıyoruz. Son bölüm ise yazarın beş kısa bilimkurgu öyküsünden oluşuyor. Açıkçası bu iki bölüm doğrudan bu amaçla kaleme alınmamış olmalarına rağmen Atwood’un bir okur/eleştirmen ve yazar olarak türe yaklaşımı konusunda ilk bölüme nazaran daha doyurucu bir bakış sağlıyor.
Kitabın ilk bölümü olan “Başka Dünyalar” yazarın 2010 yılında Emory Üniversitesi’nde vermiş olduğu Ellman Dersleri’ne dayanıyor. Üç kısımdan oluşan bu bölümü Atwood “bir nevi şahsi tarih” olarak tanımlıyor.
Yazarın çocukluğunda süper kahramanlarla kurduğu ilişkiden temelini alan “Uçan Tavşanlar” adlı ilk kısım Atwood’un süper kahramanların ortak özelliklerinin kökleri hakkındaki düşüncelerini içeriyor. Süper kahramanların ortak özelliklerinden ve bu özelliklerin kökenlerinden bahsetmeye kostümler üzerinden giriş yapıyor Atwood. Süper kahramanların çift kişiliklerinden bahsederken ayaküstü de olsa Batman’ın Jung’cı bir çözümlemesini yapmaktan da geri kalmıyor. Atwood, uçuş ile dönüşüm ve hile özelliklerine değinerek ilk kısımı sonlandırıyor.
İkinci kısım olan “Yanan Çalılar” ise Atwood’un özellikle lisans döneminde antik çağ mitolojisine duyduğu ilgiye dayanıyor. Bu kısımda Atwood bilimkurgunun öncülü ve habercisi olarak gördüğü mitler ile bilimkurgunun benzerliklerini tartışıyor. Bunu da; dünya nasıl ortaya çıkmıştır, insanlar nereden geldi, tanrılar ne istiyor ve erkeklerle kadınlar arasındaki ilişkiler nasıl olmalıdır gibi bilimkurgu ve mitlerin ortak olarak ortaya koyduğunu düşündüğü sorular ve bu soruların cevapları üzerinden anlatıyor.
İlk bölümün son kısmı “Melun Kartografyalar: Üstopyaya Varan Yollar” olarak adlandırılmış. Yazarın hiç tamamlanmamış doktora tezini temel alan bu bölüm Atwood’un ütopya ve distopya kavramlarına bakışını içeriyor. Aynı zamanda yine yazarın ifadesiyle bu kısım Atwood’un üç romanı; Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü, Antilop ve Flurya ile Tufan Zamanı hakkında.
Kitabın Başka Tasarılar adlı ikinci bölümü Atwood’un yıllar içinde kaleme aldığı giriş yazılarından eleştirilere uzanan çeşitli yazılarından oluşan bir seçkiyi içeriyor. Piercy’nin Zamanın Kıyısındaki Kadın’ı hakkında bir yazıyla açılan bölüm, Wells’ten Orwell’a, oradan Jonathan Swift’e on ayrı yazarın eserlerine ait yazıları bir araya getiriyor. Bu eserleri Atwood’un gözüyle incelemek okura ilginç bir deneyim sunarken aynı zamanda yazarın daha önceki bölümlerde anlatmaya çalıştığı kavramlara açıklık getirmeyi de kolaylaştırıyor.
Kitabın son bölümü Beş Hediye’de yazar sunduğu beş kısa bilimkurgu hikayesi ile bu bölümü Atwood hayranları için gerçekten bir hediye haline getiriyor. Atwood’un kimi zaman fazlasıyla karmaşık hale gelen kimi zaman ise aşırı basit görünen bilimkurgu anlayışını doğrudan inceleme fırsatını da tanıyan bu bölüm kitaba da noktayı koymuş oluyor.
Sonuç olarak tekrarlara düştüğü kadar sürükleyici de olan, kimi zaman bütünlükten uzaklaşsa da güçlü ifadesini kaybetmeyen, adındaki iddianın hakkını vermekte zorlansa da hayal kırıklığına uğratmayan bir kitap Başka Dünyalar: Bilim Kurgu ve Hayal Gücü. Özellikle bilimkurgu, fantastik, ütopya ve distopyalar hakkında düşünen, okuyan, yazan, çizen hiç kimsenin ıskalamaması gereken bir kitap.
- Barış ATA
İncelemenin tamamı için: http://kayiprihtim.com/inceleme/atwoo...
Başka Dünyalar üç bölümden oluşuyor. Kitaba da adını ve ağırlığını veren ilk bölüm Atwood’un bir çocuk, bir lisans öğrencisi ve bir araştırmacı/yazar olarak bilimkurgu ile kurduğu ilişki üzerinden türe ait değerlendirmelerini içeriyor. İlk bölümle birlikte kitabın “yeni” kısmı da sonlanmış oluyor.
İkinci bölümde Atwood’un daha önce çeşitli bilimkurgu eserleri hakkında yazmış olduğu eleştiri, giriş yazısı veya konuşmalardan oluşan bir derleme ile karşılaşıyoruz. Son bölüm ise yazarın beş kısa bilimkurgu öyküsünden oluşuyor. Açıkçası bu iki bölüm doğrudan bu amaçla kaleme alınmamış olmalarına rağmen Atwood’un bir okur/eleştirmen ve yazar olarak türe yaklaşımı konusunda ilk bölüme nazaran daha doyurucu bir bakış sağlıyor.
Kitabın ilk bölümü olan “Başka Dünyalar” yazarın 2010 yılında Emory Üniversitesi’nde vermiş olduğu Ellman Dersleri’ne dayanıyor. Üç kısımdan oluşan bu bölümü Atwood “bir nevi şahsi tarih” olarak tanımlıyor.
Yazarın çocukluğunda süper kahramanlarla kurduğu ilişkiden temelini alan “Uçan Tavşanlar” adlı ilk kısım Atwood’un süper kahramanların ortak özelliklerinin kökleri hakkındaki düşüncelerini içeriyor. Süper kahramanların ortak özelliklerinden ve bu özelliklerin kökenlerinden bahsetmeye kostümler üzerinden giriş yapıyor Atwood. Süper kahramanların çift kişiliklerinden bahsederken ayaküstü de olsa Batman’ın Jung’cı bir çözümlemesini yapmaktan da geri kalmıyor. Atwood, uçuş ile dönüşüm ve hile özelliklerine değinerek ilk kısımı sonlandırıyor.
İkinci kısım olan “Yanan Çalılar” ise Atwood’un özellikle lisans döneminde antik çağ mitolojisine duyduğu ilgiye dayanıyor. Bu kısımda Atwood bilimkurgunun öncülü ve habercisi olarak gördüğü mitler ile bilimkurgunun benzerliklerini tartışıyor. Bunu da; dünya nasıl ortaya çıkmıştır, insanlar nereden geldi, tanrılar ne istiyor ve erkeklerle kadınlar arasındaki ilişkiler nasıl olmalıdır gibi bilimkurgu ve mitlerin ortak olarak ortaya koyduğunu düşündüğü sorular ve bu soruların cevapları üzerinden anlatıyor.
İlk bölümün son kısmı “Melun Kartografyalar: Üstopyaya Varan Yollar” olarak adlandırılmış. Yazarın hiç tamamlanmamış doktora tezini temel alan bu bölüm Atwood’un ütopya ve distopya kavramlarına bakışını içeriyor. Aynı zamanda yine yazarın ifadesiyle bu kısım Atwood’un üç romanı; Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü, Antilop ve Flurya ile Tufan Zamanı hakkında.
Kitabın Başka Tasarılar adlı ikinci bölümü Atwood’un yıllar içinde kaleme aldığı giriş yazılarından eleştirilere uzanan çeşitli yazılarından oluşan bir seçkiyi içeriyor. Piercy’nin Zamanın Kıyısındaki Kadın’ı hakkında bir yazıyla açılan bölüm, Wells’ten Orwell’a, oradan Jonathan Swift’e on ayrı yazarın eserlerine ait yazıları bir araya getiriyor. Bu eserleri Atwood’un gözüyle incelemek okura ilginç bir deneyim sunarken aynı zamanda yazarın daha önceki bölümlerde anlatmaya çalıştığı kavramlara açıklık getirmeyi de kolaylaştırıyor.
Kitabın son bölümü Beş Hediye’de yazar sunduğu beş kısa bilimkurgu hikayesi ile bu bölümü Atwood hayranları için gerçekten bir hediye haline getiriyor. Atwood’un kimi zaman fazlasıyla karmaşık hale gelen kimi zaman ise aşırı basit görünen bilimkurgu anlayışını doğrudan inceleme fırsatını da tanıyan bu bölüm kitaba da noktayı koymuş oluyor.
Sonuç olarak tekrarlara düştüğü kadar sürükleyici de olan, kimi zaman bütünlükten uzaklaşsa da güçlü ifadesini kaybetmeyen, adındaki iddianın hakkını vermekte zorlansa da hayal kırıklığına uğratmayan bir kitap Başka Dünyalar: Bilim Kurgu ve Hayal Gücü. Özellikle bilimkurgu, fantastik, ütopya ve distopyalar hakkında düşünen, okuyan, yazan, çizen hiç kimsenin ıskalamaması gereken bir kitap.
- Barış ATA
İncelemenin tamamı için: http://kayiprihtim.com/inceleme/atwoo...
July 4, 2016
Collection of essays, mostly about science fiction and the struggle to define it. Atwood sets the record straight about how she really sees science fiction. Early half of the book is better, though the best thing is the letter she wrote to a school district that tried to ban Handmaid's Tale.
March 14, 2019
Atwood, denemelerinden ve birkaç minik öyküsünden oluşan kitabının ilk sayfalarına "Bilim kurgu nedir, ne değildir?" sorusunun muğlak sınırları içinde gezinmesiyle başlamış. Kendi eserlerinin yanı sıra bilim kurgu, fantastik, ütopya ve distopya türlerine ait olarak kabul edilen kült eserlerin içeriklerini, yazar olarak kendisini nasıl yönlendirdiğini ve bu eserleri besleyen dönemsel krizleri bir potada eriterek kendi aklındaki ve türe meraklı olanların aklındaki sorulara cevap vermeye çalışmış. Denemeleri okuduğunuzda aklınızdaki sorulara cevap bulabilir ama bunun yanı sıra yeni sorularla kitabın kapağını kapatabilirsiniz.
Son zamanlarda okuduğum "Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü" kitabıyla ilgili yazmış olduğu bir paragraf var ki onu paylaşmadan duramayacağım, zira bu açıklamanın eserin anlaşılması açısından yolumuza ışık tutabileceği gibi düşünsel anlamda önümüze başka başka kapıları açabileceğini düşünüyorum.
"Ben kadın bakış açısından bir distopya yazmayı, dünyayı olduğu şekliyle Julia'nın gözünden aktarmayı denemiştim. Ne var ki bu durum, Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü'nü bir "feminist distopya" yapmıyor, bir kadına ses ve iç yaşam kazandırmanın, kadınların bu gibi hissiyatlara sahip olamayacaklarını düşünen insanlar tarafından daima " feminist" şeklinde nitelendirilecek olması dışında tabii."
Son zamanlarda okuduğum "Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü" kitabıyla ilgili yazmış olduğu bir paragraf var ki onu paylaşmadan duramayacağım, zira bu açıklamanın eserin anlaşılması açısından yolumuza ışık tutabileceği gibi düşünsel anlamda önümüze başka başka kapıları açabileceğini düşünüyorum.
"Ben kadın bakış açısından bir distopya yazmayı, dünyayı olduğu şekliyle Julia'nın gözünden aktarmayı denemiştim. Ne var ki bu durum, Damızlık Kızın Öyküsü'nü bir "feminist distopya" yapmıyor, bir kadına ses ve iç yaşam kazandırmanın, kadınların bu gibi hissiyatlara sahip olamayacaklarını düşünen insanlar tarafından daima " feminist" şeklinde nitelendirilecek olması dışında tabii."
January 18, 2024
A bit unsure how to rate this one, honestly. Atwood as a prose stylist is excellent, and she has a deft touch with recounting her own childhood literary explorations and unpacking 19th century literature. But her idea of what constitutes science fiction is idiosyncratic at best, her interpretations sometimes baffling (Le Guin's "Coming of Age in Karhide" Atwood summarizes as "not only erotic but happy," which strikes me as a shallow reading), and her obsession with Malthusianism dated. (Also dated: an aside about how great it is that we'll soon have a cure for autism.)
In conclusion, maybe I should stick with reading Atwood's fiction. Or try some of her poetry.
In conclusion, maybe I should stick with reading Atwood's fiction. Or try some of her poetry.
November 2, 2015
A book I'd been hoping to read for a while. It was on my birthday list and my sister, and her husband, were kind enough to oblige. As I unwrapped it (remembering to use my grateful face) my sister shared two thoughts with me. Firstly, she was surprised that I had asked for a Margaret Atwood book as she really didn't see her as my 'type of author', and secondly, why was Margaret Atwood writing a book about science fiction - after all, she didn't really write science fiction.
My sister likes to speak her mind - she might even be thought to sound a bit 'superior' to the untrained ear (she is a university lecturer after all, whereas I am much less well educated), she did also describe my Goodreads profile as a list of books she wouldn't want to read - but she's right, I've never ready any Margaret Atwood before, and feminist literature wouldn't normally be my go-to genre. After my first question as to how she would categorise The Handmaid's Tale left her a little more subdued we got to the reason why I wanted to read this book - Atwood is an author that, according to many science fiction reviewers, clearly seems to write science fiction, yet she's reputed to have voiced a somewhat disparaging view of the genre on at least one occasion - something along the lines of 'science fiction is characterised by talking squids in space'. Obviously, the actual interview is not available online - at least I couldn't find it - so the context of the discussion is hard to gauge. The quotes you can find are, selectively edited down, on the sites that seem to by the hardest on her view. So what to think. Luckily, just in time, Atwood kindly decides to write a book that describes "her lifelong relationship with the literary form we have come to know as 'science fiction'". That should answer my questions ...
The book is broken down into three sections - firstly an autobiographical section, the titular 'In Other Worlds', describes Atwood's introduction to books, her obvious love and fascination with science fiction as a genre, with comics, through her university and post-graduate writings. These are more than nostalgic memoirs though, as much as she'd like to sidestep it in the introduction, it is the beginnings of an academic study of science fiction. Her understanding, and biases, of the genre term science fiction, mythologies, theologies, utopias and dystopias. Ending with an overview of her three science/speculative fiction novels - The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood .
The second section, 'Other Deliberations', is a collection of some of Atwood's literary reviews. Her reviews of H. Rider Haggard's She , a collection of Ursula K. Le Guin's short stories, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm , Brave New World , H.G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau amongst others. Each and insightful detailed investigation of the work. Even the books I'd already read suddenly felt like I'd barely read them at all, I'd missed the point. Great - more books to add to my to-reread shelf.
Finally, the third section, 'Five Tributes', contains five works of science/speculative fiction. Each a short story in a different vein. But each more, or less, science fiction (or speculative fiction if that's what you'd like it to be):
Cryogenics: A Symposium explores the risks, and costs, of having your head frozen to be woken up in the future. Told from the point of view of a conversation at a dinner party. What happens when it all goes wrong? If you can't afford to have your whole body frozen, maybe you can only afford your head? Definitely science fiction here - there's science - going wrong - and it's in the future.
Cold-Blooded explores a first-contact situation. Except they've come to us. And they're insects. Eventually they come to communicate with us, but they don't understand us, we're just too different. Science fiction again. Aliens, space travel, and giant talking insects (no squids though).
Homelanding is about an alien tour or an apparently backward world. Where the tour is treated as a museum exhibit. More aliens, possibly not on earth. Again pretty sure this is science fiction.
If we left a time capsule for the future. Long after we're dead. Long after the planet is dead. What would it say. Time Capsule Found on the Dead Planet is the letter in the time capsule. Sounds like more far-future stuff, presumably an alien is reading it. Yep, it's science fiction.
The last story is more complicated. The Peach Women of A a'A is a short story, told by a character in one of Atwood's own novels, The Blind Assassin . Recursive. While the novel isn't science fiction (I don't think - I haven't actually read it), the character telling the short story is an author of pulp science fiction - asked for a story with a happy ending this is what he produces. It tells the story of two men involved in the defence of Earth against the Lizard men of Xenor. As they are shot down and about to die, they are rescued by the peach women of the title, who heal them and proceed to tend to their every want. Of course, as a true utopia, having everything you want gets pretty boring (eventually) and they (or the protagonists of the containing novel) have to decide if they should stay in the happy world of A a'A or break out of the utopia to almost certain not happiness. Aliens, space ships, morphing peach women aliens, lizard men. All pretty standard science fiction.
Two appendices close the book out. A letter to a school district that had tried to ban The Handmaid's Tale, and to the students and teachers that fought it. And a discussion of the impact of pulp science fiction covers, "bountifully endowed" women wearing skimpy chain mail tops, on her characters and her own fiction.
Overall, this is an absolutely fascinating book. A real insight into Margaret Atwood's preferences, theories, and biases about the science fiction genre. I entirely understand where she's coming from, the term has become loaded, is restrictive, and makes for uncomfortable classifications for a large number of works. Personally, I think the whole thing is a bit of a storm-in-a-teacup, but I enjoyed finding out a little bit as to why Atwood may (or may not) disagree with me. Which brings me to my two niggles. Even combined they aren't enough to dent the 5-star rating this book deserves, but ... For all the words in the book, it doesn't ever seem to answer the two key questions I went into the book with - why are you writing the book and how does it, specifically, tie into the annoyance that parts of the Internet seem to have with the squid comments? And, if you don't totally like the genre labels that we have do you have a clear idea of the taxonomy that you'd like to see instead? Both of these questions felt, to me, skirted around somewhat and not directly addressed. And secondly, if Atwood thinks that the genre label science fiction is too limited - why does she feel the need to, when discussing The Island of Doctor Moreau, state "... the book is certainly not a novel, if by that we mean a prose narrative dealing with observable social life."? Although phrased as a question, it doesn't read like one, and seems to imply that Atwood would almost like to limit the term novel itself as a kind of genre - one that would not apply to most science fiction (or even speculative fiction). In fact, earlier on in the book she describes her own three SF books as "novel-length ustopias". Aren't they still novels?
My sister likes to speak her mind - she might even be thought to sound a bit 'superior' to the untrained ear (she is a university lecturer after all, whereas I am much less well educated), she did also describe my Goodreads profile as a list of books she wouldn't want to read - but she's right, I've never ready any Margaret Atwood before, and feminist literature wouldn't normally be my go-to genre. After my first question as to how she would categorise The Handmaid's Tale left her a little more subdued we got to the reason why I wanted to read this book - Atwood is an author that, according to many science fiction reviewers, clearly seems to write science fiction, yet she's reputed to have voiced a somewhat disparaging view of the genre on at least one occasion - something along the lines of 'science fiction is characterised by talking squids in space'. Obviously, the actual interview is not available online - at least I couldn't find it - so the context of the discussion is hard to gauge. The quotes you can find are, selectively edited down, on the sites that seem to by the hardest on her view. So what to think. Luckily, just in time, Atwood kindly decides to write a book that describes "her lifelong relationship with the literary form we have come to know as 'science fiction'". That should answer my questions ...
The book is broken down into three sections - firstly an autobiographical section, the titular 'In Other Worlds', describes Atwood's introduction to books, her obvious love and fascination with science fiction as a genre, with comics, through her university and post-graduate writings. These are more than nostalgic memoirs though, as much as she'd like to sidestep it in the introduction, it is the beginnings of an academic study of science fiction. Her understanding, and biases, of the genre term science fiction, mythologies, theologies, utopias and dystopias. Ending with an overview of her three science/speculative fiction novels - The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood .
The second section, 'Other Deliberations', is a collection of some of Atwood's literary reviews. Her reviews of H. Rider Haggard's She , a collection of Ursula K. Le Guin's short stories, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm , Brave New World , H.G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau amongst others. Each and insightful detailed investigation of the work. Even the books I'd already read suddenly felt like I'd barely read them at all, I'd missed the point. Great - more books to add to my to-reread shelf.
Finally, the third section, 'Five Tributes', contains five works of science/speculative fiction. Each a short story in a different vein. But each more, or less, science fiction (or speculative fiction if that's what you'd like it to be):
Cryogenics: A Symposium explores the risks, and costs, of having your head frozen to be woken up in the future. Told from the point of view of a conversation at a dinner party. What happens when it all goes wrong? If you can't afford to have your whole body frozen, maybe you can only afford your head? Definitely science fiction here - there's science - going wrong - and it's in the future.
Cold-Blooded explores a first-contact situation. Except they've come to us. And they're insects. Eventually they come to communicate with us, but they don't understand us, we're just too different. Science fiction again. Aliens, space travel, and giant talking insects (no squids though).
Homelanding is about an alien tour or an apparently backward world. Where the tour is treated as a museum exhibit. More aliens, possibly not on earth. Again pretty sure this is science fiction.
If we left a time capsule for the future. Long after we're dead. Long after the planet is dead. What would it say. Time Capsule Found on the Dead Planet is the letter in the time capsule. Sounds like more far-future stuff, presumably an alien is reading it. Yep, it's science fiction.
The last story is more complicated. The Peach Women of A a'A is a short story, told by a character in one of Atwood's own novels, The Blind Assassin . Recursive. While the novel isn't science fiction (I don't think - I haven't actually read it), the character telling the short story is an author of pulp science fiction - asked for a story with a happy ending this is what he produces. It tells the story of two men involved in the defence of Earth against the Lizard men of Xenor. As they are shot down and about to die, they are rescued by the peach women of the title, who heal them and proceed to tend to their every want. Of course, as a true utopia, having everything you want gets pretty boring (eventually) and they (or the protagonists of the containing novel) have to decide if they should stay in the happy world of A a'A or break out of the utopia to almost certain not happiness. Aliens, space ships, morphing peach women aliens, lizard men. All pretty standard science fiction.
Two appendices close the book out. A letter to a school district that had tried to ban The Handmaid's Tale, and to the students and teachers that fought it. And a discussion of the impact of pulp science fiction covers, "bountifully endowed" women wearing skimpy chain mail tops, on her characters and her own fiction.
Overall, this is an absolutely fascinating book. A real insight into Margaret Atwood's preferences, theories, and biases about the science fiction genre. I entirely understand where she's coming from, the term has become loaded, is restrictive, and makes for uncomfortable classifications for a large number of works. Personally, I think the whole thing is a bit of a storm-in-a-teacup, but I enjoyed finding out a little bit as to why Atwood may (or may not) disagree with me. Which brings me to my two niggles. Even combined they aren't enough to dent the 5-star rating this book deserves, but ... For all the words in the book, it doesn't ever seem to answer the two key questions I went into the book with - why are you writing the book and how does it, specifically, tie into the annoyance that parts of the Internet seem to have with the squid comments? And, if you don't totally like the genre labels that we have do you have a clear idea of the taxonomy that you'd like to see instead? Both of these questions felt, to me, skirted around somewhat and not directly addressed. And secondly, if Atwood thinks that the genre label science fiction is too limited - why does she feel the need to, when discussing The Island of Doctor Moreau, state "... the book is certainly not a novel, if by that we mean a prose narrative dealing with observable social life."? Although phrased as a question, it doesn't read like one, and seems to imply that Atwood would almost like to limit the term novel itself as a kind of genre - one that would not apply to most science fiction (or even speculative fiction). In fact, earlier on in the book she describes her own three SF books as "novel-length ustopias". Aren't they still novels?
August 29, 2022
Endlessly interesting and incitful, Atwood covers a lot of territory in this volume. Her thoughts on science fiction and mainstream literature, and Art broadly, are thoughtful and fascinating. Above all, I am delighted that Margaret Atwood is a fan of superheroes and read Captain Marvel, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman as a kid.
July 19, 2021
I love and respect Atwood's work. She is creative, imaginative and has just the right pinch of cynicism added to her work to give it spunk and spice. The only issue I've ever had with her was, that I read that, she refused to classify her later novels as "Science Fiction". To me, the Madd Adam Trilogy, "A Hand Maid's Tale" and "The Heart Goes Last" fit well into that genre. So this was a really cool collection of articles, book reviews and essays plus short stories and commentaries that made the case for Atwood, It is clear that she had nothing against the genre; to the contrary, she was inspired by it. She loves and respects, for example, the work of Ursula Le Guin - seems to believe she does a far better a job at it than she, herself can.
I simply loved this book. I think everyone should have a look at it. Atwood has a very clear idea of what a Utopia/Distopia is and and what she thinks separates Fantasy from Scifi.
There is some repetition here as some of the content are articles and essays that cover the same ground, so I docked it a star for editing reasons, which I though could have been done differently, but that is actually no big deal...
A must read - really.
And wow, the girl can write a review!
I simply loved this book. I think everyone should have a look at it. Atwood has a very clear idea of what a Utopia/Distopia is and and what she thinks separates Fantasy from Scifi.
There is some repetition here as some of the content are articles and essays that cover the same ground, so I docked it a star for editing reasons, which I though could have been done differently, but that is actually no big deal...
A must read - really.
And wow, the girl can write a review!
February 27, 2024
Best fiction-related non-fiction book ever.
August 11, 2020
I geeked out about this book a little. I loved reading Atwood's contemplations on the sci fi genre/s and comparing them to my own studies of dystopian literature (she talks about Orwell and Huxley a lot), but also learning more about her life and career. Hence the first third of the book was my favorite part. The second third focuses on specific titles such as 1984, The Island of Doctor Moreau, Never Let Me Go and many more. Those were more accessible when I actually knew the works she was referring to but even if I didn't most texts include interesting commentary on the progress of technology independent of the book the text was initially dealing with. In the last section Atwood presents some of her own SF short stories, which was a cool idea in the context of all the theoretical rumination.
November 26, 2019
This has made me want to dig out and re-read some old favorites and to bust out the scifi I've been meaning to read.
Great book.
Great book.
June 25, 2012
It's no surprise to anyone that I have a serious girl-crush on Margaret Atwood. There's very little that she's written that I haven't enjoyed on some level, and almost always does her writing make me think on a different level, both aspects of which are pretty important for me. I have some issues with her personality that are similar to others - that in interviews she comes across sometimes as snooty, that she can't seem to get off her high-horse about how some of her own literature isn't SF, or it isn't feminist, or whatever. It all leads to some interesting discussion about writerly types, and it doesn't really bother me if I disagree with her. She's the boss of her own writing, certainly; but if I feel something is feminist, that's on me, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I especially dig her essays, and I've long wanted to read her thoughts on SF as a genre, though for some reason I put this out of my head for a long while and only remembered again recently when I saw it on a display table at the library. YOINK.
A non-fan of Atwood that might pick this up would probably say something along the lines of this being some disjointed drivel, a lot of mamby-pamby self-inflation, whatever. But for fans like myself, meh. She could write about the history of dirt and I would be excited to read it.
I love learning little things about her, and here we learn a lot. She has roots in SF, she's a fan of it, she's read it, she's written it, she's studied it. And now here are those thoughts all in one place, since some of them have been published before. I'm a fan, but I don't have the time or patience to go into the world to try to find every article she's ever written. (Although now that idea sounds really fucking fun.)
This is also literary criticism, in which she shares her opinion on a variety of different authors and titles. There's no talk here of some of the more common SF writers - there's no Herbert, there's no Dick, there's no Bester. She does talk about Verne, Wells, Shelley, Jonathan Swift, Wyndham, Haggard, and even one or two people I'm not familiar with. I have a list of books now to read, other lit crit writers, and that excites me.
I especially dig her essays, and I've long wanted to read her thoughts on SF as a genre, though for some reason I put this out of my head for a long while and only remembered again recently when I saw it on a display table at the library. YOINK.
A non-fan of Atwood that might pick this up would probably say something along the lines of this being some disjointed drivel, a lot of mamby-pamby self-inflation, whatever. But for fans like myself, meh. She could write about the history of dirt and I would be excited to read it.
I love learning little things about her, and here we learn a lot. She has roots in SF, she's a fan of it, she's read it, she's written it, she's studied it. And now here are those thoughts all in one place, since some of them have been published before. I'm a fan, but I don't have the time or patience to go into the world to try to find every article she's ever written. (Although now that idea sounds really fucking fun.)
This is also literary criticism, in which she shares her opinion on a variety of different authors and titles. There's no talk here of some of the more common SF writers - there's no Herbert, there's no Dick, there's no Bester. She does talk about Verne, Wells, Shelley, Jonathan Swift, Wyndham, Haggard, and even one or two people I'm not familiar with. I have a list of books now to read, other lit crit writers, and that excites me.
December 18, 2018
I'm a huge Margaret Atwood fan and have read and loved both The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake, but I never knew before how completely immersed in and influenced by SF she is. It was really fascinating to read some of her own shorter experiments in the form. I also loved hearing about her childhood reading habits and how she came to write the aforementioned novels. Her reviews of other writers' work were also interesting--as a fan of Woman on the Edge of Time and 1984, I was delighted to hear her thoughts on both, and she got me thinking I should reread Brave New World--as a naive Catholic high-school student, it occurs to me that I probably didn't get that much out of it the first time around!
This is a collection of pieces from various outlets, and as such, it is definitely repetitive in some ways. That got a bit frustrating at times. Overall, though, you can't go wrong if you decide to spend some time in the company of Margaret Atwood.
I received this as part of a First Reads giveaway here on Goodreads.
This is a collection of pieces from various outlets, and as such, it is definitely repetitive in some ways. That got a bit frustrating at times. Overall, though, you can't go wrong if you decide to spend some time in the company of Margaret Atwood.
I received this as part of a First Reads giveaway here on Goodreads.
Want to read
October 13, 2011check out how amazing Margaret Atwood is. Per this TreeHugger article: there will be a limited-edition, signed first run of this book (300 copies) printed on a new thing called Second Harvest paper. "This is paper made from the leftover straw after the grain harvest and all other uses are accounted for. It is made without any harm to forests (or food). The straw would otherwise be burnt, causing significant air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions." Of course, the Second Harvest books costs $100 a pop (doing the right thing is so rarely cheap), but for the rest of us, the main run of the book will be printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper. Because Margaret Atwood is the fucking best.
July 8, 2018
I read this in 2011, and my booklog entry reads in total "A, interesting ." The cover art looks vaguely familiar. This appears to be the only Atwood book I've actually read.
Here's a decent review of the book, a collection of essays:
https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/...
And here's an uncollected 1983 essay:
http://www.humanity.org/voices/commen...
And another, "The Female Body", 1990
https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/AOE-...
Here's a decent review of the book, a collection of essays:
https://www.sfgate.com/books/article/...
And here's an uncollected 1983 essay:
http://www.humanity.org/voices/commen...
And another, "The Female Body", 1990
https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/AOE-...
February 27, 2017
Margaret Atwood is who I want to be when I grow up.
Insight into utopias, how society spins them, weaves them, and records them. Speculative fiction, and a rose by any other name.
Insight into utopias, how society spins them, weaves them, and records them. Speculative fiction, and a rose by any other name.
March 31, 2012
It’s easy to dismiss Margaret Atwood as the science fiction writer who disses science fiction. But the reality is far more complex, signaled by the highly ironic (and sad) opening quote by Octavia Butler: “I’m a fifty-three-year old writer who can remember being a ten-year-old writer and who expects someday to be an eighty-year-old writer.”
Ms. Atwood eschews any characterization as a “fan”, but she has an impressive grounding in the classics of the field, and an obvious appreciation for current anthropological and speculative fiction writers.
However, she sets the conflict out squarely in her introduction as she discusses an Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood review by Ursula K. LeGuin, that “caused a certain amount of uproar in the skin-tight clothing and other-planetary communities” (p.5).
One of the most skillful writers in the world today didn’t include this belittling reference to people who love speculative fiction, myself included, by accident. Reading on was a bit of a chore after that, but worth it.
In this sometimes contradictory collection of essays, Atwood discusses her complex relationship, as a reader and as a writer, with science fiction. She defines science fiction as limited to “things that could not possibly happen” - rockets and rayguns, War of the World-type sf. Since her own speculative fiction does not fit into this category, it isn’t science fiction.
Atwood believes she writes speculative fiction, which she defines as “things that really could happen but just hadn’t completely happened when the author wrote the book” p6. [return]But of course, definitions of science fiction and fantasy are far more mutable. She acknowledges this even while continuing to distance her own work from the science fiction “label”.
These essays informed me, made me angry, amused me, and set me stalking around verbalizing counter-arguments for days. I may not agree with Margaret Atwood, but I always love reading her work.
Ms. Atwood eschews any characterization as a “fan”, but she has an impressive grounding in the classics of the field, and an obvious appreciation for current anthropological and speculative fiction writers.
However, she sets the conflict out squarely in her introduction as she discusses an Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood review by Ursula K. LeGuin, that “caused a certain amount of uproar in the skin-tight clothing and other-planetary communities” (p.5).
One of the most skillful writers in the world today didn’t include this belittling reference to people who love speculative fiction, myself included, by accident. Reading on was a bit of a chore after that, but worth it.
In this sometimes contradictory collection of essays, Atwood discusses her complex relationship, as a reader and as a writer, with science fiction. She defines science fiction as limited to “things that could not possibly happen” - rockets and rayguns, War of the World-type sf. Since her own speculative fiction does not fit into this category, it isn’t science fiction.
Atwood believes she writes speculative fiction, which she defines as “things that really could happen but just hadn’t completely happened when the author wrote the book” p6. [return]But of course, definitions of science fiction and fantasy are far more mutable. She acknowledges this even while continuing to distance her own work from the science fiction “label”.
These essays informed me, made me angry, amused me, and set me stalking around verbalizing counter-arguments for days. I may not agree with Margaret Atwood, but I always love reading her work.
July 16, 2015
I was hoping for something with a bit more depth from such a well-regarded author as Atwood, but I was sorely disappointed. There's nothing particularly insightful here - the most I got out of it was a short survey of well-known sci-fi from an earlier generation that sounds like it might be somewhat interesting.
Worse than the dullness of the essays themselves is that there doesn't seem to be any cohesive theme or point to the essays, it's just a randomly-collected jumble of musings about science fiction. There are certainly threads running through the book (the role of gender, dystopia and eutopia, etc), but these are present only because these are the things that interest Atwood - it's not like she's taking these themes and fitting them into some overarching framework, or even examining the different facets. It seems likely that this book was scraped together from miscellaneous mostly-nonfiction essays she had lying around. A good example of the "miscellaneous" feeling of this is the inclusion of an open letter to some random public school that tried to remove The Handmaid's Tale from their curriculum. What?
Finally, the audiobook version specifically has an irritating quirk - about half the book is read by Atwood herself (I didn't realize she was Canadian until she said "x-y-zed", so that's something), and the other half read by a voice actress (oddly, it's the middle half). The voice actress does a good job, but I found Atwood's reading style a bit dull. It's a shame the professional audiobook narrator didn't do the whole thing (no offense to Atwood intended, I doubt I'd do any better because neither she nor I are professional voice actors).
Worse than the dullness of the essays themselves is that there doesn't seem to be any cohesive theme or point to the essays, it's just a randomly-collected jumble of musings about science fiction. There are certainly threads running through the book (the role of gender, dystopia and eutopia, etc), but these are present only because these are the things that interest Atwood - it's not like she's taking these themes and fitting them into some overarching framework, or even examining the different facets. It seems likely that this book was scraped together from miscellaneous mostly-nonfiction essays she had lying around. A good example of the "miscellaneous" feeling of this is the inclusion of an open letter to some random public school that tried to remove The Handmaid's Tale from their curriculum. What?
Finally, the audiobook version specifically has an irritating quirk - about half the book is read by Atwood herself (I didn't realize she was Canadian until she said "x-y-zed", so that's something), and the other half read by a voice actress (oddly, it's the middle half). The voice actress does a good job, but I found Atwood's reading style a bit dull. It's a shame the professional audiobook narrator didn't do the whole thing (no offense to Atwood intended, I doubt I'd do any better because neither she nor I are professional voice actors).
July 11, 2019
Perhaps the book should be called 'SF and Margaret Atwood's Imagination'.
It is more or less about her relationship with this genre. It then goes into the fairly respectable literary pedigree that SF does have. SF certainly did not just fall out of the sky one day landing on H.G. Wells head.
The book then has a collection of reviews and short stories, which is probably the better half of the book. Atwood is an excellent writer of the essay. She reminds me of Orwell in that she writes fiction and nonfiction with an attuned understanding of the differences between the two forms.
Well worth reading if you are interested in Margaret Atwood and SF.
It is more or less about her relationship with this genre. It then goes into the fairly respectable literary pedigree that SF does have. SF certainly did not just fall out of the sky one day landing on H.G. Wells head.
The book then has a collection of reviews and short stories, which is probably the better half of the book. Atwood is an excellent writer of the essay. She reminds me of Orwell in that she writes fiction and nonfiction with an attuned understanding of the differences between the two forms.
Well worth reading if you are interested in Margaret Atwood and SF.
March 9, 2017
This is a series of essays by Margaret Atwood that discuss her particular views on science fiction as well as a lot of memoir-type information about her growing up, schooling, and studying fairly obscure texts. The only other Margaret Atwood I've read is "The Handmaid's Tale" which she talks about a little here, but it made it difficult to follow other essays that were discussing books of hers I've never read. Also, she narrates part of the audiobook herself, and, uh, audiobook narration is not her strong suit. Like, at all.
November 29, 2011
A thought-provoking collection of essays about science fiction and fantasy that can be read in any order and that inspired me to read two novels. I found the review/analysis of Never Let Me Go to be particularly insightful. However, I do not agree that Star Trek should be characterized as fantasy. It is quintessential science fiction to me.
June 2, 2018
Lectures, book reviews, short stories by the author
Margaret Atwood went to graduate school for English (focusing on Victorian fiction) and this background was very clear in her lectures. It was interesting to read her take on science fiction, utopias, and dystopias. My favorite parts were her book reviews - I always enjoy hearing what other people think of books I've read or want to read.
Margaret Atwood went to graduate school for English (focusing on Victorian fiction) and this background was very clear in her lectures. It was interesting to read her take on science fiction, utopias, and dystopias. My favorite parts were her book reviews - I always enjoy hearing what other people think of books I've read or want to read.
Read
April 17, 2017She's definitely literate
July 3, 2020
Confess, I'm a little surprised not to see more popularity for this book online. Perhaps the popularity of the Television Series Handmaid's Tale didn't translate to all of Atwood's other works, which is a shame because this stuff is really good.
Atwood proves her sharp intellect in this review, specifically capturing many insights into utopias and dystopias (or at she calls them Ustopias) and providing intriguing reviews of the concept of Science Fiction.
The book is divied into the main essay on Sci-Fi, about 50% of the book, then the remaining half a series of individual pieces focusing on specific works (1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World) and a few short pieces of fiction at the every end.
What I like most about Atwood's non-fiction is the wide ranging analysis, one never feels bogged down in random detail, but instead swept up into almost random (but always meaningful) flights of thought.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in Utopia, and dystopia fiction.
Atwood proves her sharp intellect in this review, specifically capturing many insights into utopias and dystopias (or at she calls them Ustopias) and providing intriguing reviews of the concept of Science Fiction.
The book is divied into the main essay on Sci-Fi, about 50% of the book, then the remaining half a series of individual pieces focusing on specific works (1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World) and a few short pieces of fiction at the every end.
What I like most about Atwood's non-fiction is the wide ranging analysis, one never feels bogged down in random detail, but instead swept up into almost random (but always meaningful) flights of thought.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in Utopia, and dystopia fiction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 366 reviews