mihrreader's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
5.0
An excellent and thorough literary and sociological analysis of gender in science fiction!! Highly recommend for any gender nerds; it's accessible (assuming familiarity with gender theory and literary analysis) but doesn't dumb down any of the stories or pander to the reader. Despite being 20 years old, it holds up very well, and I'd be so curious to see an updated version discussing the SF and gender revolutions of the past two decades. Excellent, excellent book!!
manwithanagenda's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.0
Though cleverly disguised (and creditably densely written [on the surface anyways]) as a strictly academic text, 'Decoding Gender in Science Fiction' is an accessible and at times slyly comic look at Science Fiction through the lens of gender theory.
Coming into this I thought I was reasonably well-read on Science Fiction, the majors at any rate: Heinlen, Asimov, Clarke, and Le Guin, a few anthologies of stories from Campbell's 'Amazing' and even precursors such as Edward Bellamy and Mary Shelley. But, of course, I've only scratched the surface. Nathanial Hawthorne and Herman Melville?
Attebery read every issue of every SF pulp in 1937 to get the full picture of Science Fiction 'back in the day', and chronicles the development of the genre from Gothic fiction, and its cross-breeding with utopian, mystery and travel writing. His reasoning is sound, and at every juncture and point of his analysis he is sure to acknowledge traditional interpretations and leading criticism, especially where they conflict with his readings.
My last year in school I took several gender theory courses (inc. 'Masculinities in Modern Europe' and 'Women Writers'), so I was familiar with some of his methods, but its always refreshing to be shown how to view a familiar text, from 'Frankenstein' to 'Star Trek', in a completely different light.
If its been awhile since you've read literary criticism or any kind of academic monograph, this might take 20 or 30 pages to get into, but the information and the revelations are so incredible, especially when it comes into the 60s and 70s, that its worth the effort. Attebary does his best too, to keep things light without undermining his conclusions.
Coming into this I thought I was reasonably well-read on Science Fiction, the majors at any rate: Heinlen, Asimov, Clarke, and Le Guin, a few anthologies of stories from Campbell's 'Amazing' and even precursors such as Edward Bellamy and Mary Shelley. But, of course, I've only scratched the surface. Nathanial Hawthorne and Herman Melville?
Attebery read every issue of every SF pulp in 1937 to get the full picture of Science Fiction 'back in the day', and chronicles the development of the genre from Gothic fiction, and its cross-breeding with utopian, mystery and travel writing. His reasoning is sound, and at every juncture and point of his analysis he is sure to acknowledge traditional interpretations and leading criticism, especially where they conflict with his readings.
My last year in school I took several gender theory courses (inc. 'Masculinities in Modern Europe' and 'Women Writers'), so I was familiar with some of his methods, but its always refreshing to be shown how to view a familiar text, from 'Frankenstein' to 'Star Trek', in a completely different light.
If its been awhile since you've read literary criticism or any kind of academic monograph, this might take 20 or 30 pages to get into, but the information and the revelations are so incredible, especially when it comes into the 60s and 70s, that its worth the effort. Attebary does his best too, to keep things light without undermining his conclusions.
More...