The premise of Decoding Gender in Science Fiction is, as Brian Attebery states in the first chapter, that “Science fiction is a useful tool for investigating habits of thought, including conceptions of gender. Gender, in turn, offers an interesting glimpse into some of the unacknowledged messages that permeate science fiction” (1). What we have in Decoding Gender in Science Fiction is the most comprehensive analysis of gender tropes in Science Fiction from its origins in Gothic literature to today. Attebery states in his introduction that he was surprised to find there was no historical study of the development of sex and gender in SF. While there certainly are reams of critical articles and books on sex and gender in SF (the work of Marleen S. Barr, Robin Roberts, and Ximena Gallardo C. immediately come to mind), Attebery is correct in the sense that there has not been a systematic, chronological introduction into the changing representations of gender roles in SF that covers all the major periods. This was a vital omission in SF studies particularly if SF is to continue being read and taught as a serious literature and, perhaps, finally help lift genre fiction out of the literary ghetto.
Nine compact chapters comprise this study and each follows a clear chronological progression through a particular theme. “Chapter One: Secret Decoder Ring” serves as both an introduction to the full work and also sets the historical stage with concise definitions of terms. As Attebery states, “Gender is a way of assigning social and psychological meaning to sexual difference, insofar as that difference is perceived in form, appearance, sexual function, and expressive behavior. Science fiction is a system for generating and interpreting narratives that reflect insights derived from, technological offshoots of, and attitudes toward science” (2). Though I might argue that characters in a novel have no sex as they have no “real” body, Attebery is perfectly clear that any definition of gender or Science Fiction is open to interpretation and that this particular framework was derived through the interplay of both terms. Thus, though his definitions may be questioned outside the context of this work, Attebery cogently defines the terms under which the logic of Decoding Gender in Science Fiction proceeds. His concise definitions of both science fiction and gender—both hotly debated terms—admirably set the stage for the clear and lucid discussion of the representations of gender in science fiction to follow.
“Chapter Two: From Neat Idea to Trope” surveys the literary origins of both “genre fiction” and “science fiction” in the gothic romance and particularly in the work of Mary Shelley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allen Poe, and the almost forgotten writer Jane Webb Louden. Each of the other seven chapters likewise focuses on the emerging (if not in every case the prevailing) gender theme in a particular era. In “Chapter 3: Animating the Inert: Gender and Science in the Pulps,” Attebery takes on the Golden Age pulps and the early “boys toys” narratives by looking for slippages and gaps in the predominantly male-dominated narratives where women generally are confused, serve coffee, and/or have green skin. His “against the grain reading” emerges from a full study of virtually every SF pulp published in one year (1937, or the year that marks the culmination of the Golden Age in SF) and, therefore differs markedly from Robin Robert’s more specific reading of the female alien in the Pulps (A New Species, 1993) in its sheer depth. Most interesting is the role of women as both fans and writers of the pulps (yes, there were both from early on) in helping shape what SF was to become.
The forth and fifth chapters, “Supermen” and “Wonder Women” respectively, survey the predominantly male-based evolution stories loosely taxonimized as the “homo superior” theme compared to the somewhat later manifestation of the heretofore “missing superwoman.” While the earlier stories evidenced a clear notion of how men would (and should) evolve—smarter, faster, less encumbered by emotion—these writers seemed to only have a vague notion of what evolution would mean for women beyond Lilith-inspired super-sexed being. The eternal problem of “what do women want” finds its answer in the Wonder Women (named, of course, after Marston’s thinly veiled S&M superhero). Yet, however sexist these texts remained, they did pave the way for stronger females in SF and eventually served as the basis for the misogynistic dystopias and feminist utopias to follow, which are the subject of chapter six, “Women Alone, Men Alone.” Chapter seven, “Androgyny as Difference” heads into the liminal territory of “othered bodies.” Attebery bases his discussion on The Left Hand of Darkness and then branches out to examine the ongoing discussion of differently sexed bodies. “Chapter Eight: ‘But Aren’t Those Just . . . You Know, Metaphors’” addresses postmodernism and SF in terms of how tropes generated in fiction can shape reality. I was reminded throughout this chapter of a how a space shuttle was named after Star Trek’s Enterprise and then we later see the shuttle on the wall of the Enterprise in a Star Trek movie. But even more important is the real feedback loop that has developed between SF and science. These are, indeed, the fictions of which our stuff is made.
Finally, chapter nine, “Who Farms the Future” serves as a call to action, a manifesto of sorts, for staking out claims in the future through SF. We already have, of course, a few examples; those that immediately come to mind are the work of African American feminist Octavia Butler and the Mexican writer Laura Esquivel (of Like Water for Chocolate Fame), who penned the futuristic-mystical The Law of Love that featured body swapping and a starship named The Intergalactic Cockfight, but the predominance of the white middle class in SF authorship, readership, and scholarship still forecasts that the future as far as these tropes predict will be (god help us) white and middle class. But we still have hope. As Attebery states in chapter one, “The history of the genre, at least in my alternative vision, reflects the ongoing hope that if we change the signs, the world might follow” (15), and what is SF if not a literature of hope?
Decoding Gender in Science Fiction is, by and large, a straightforward chronological survey of the appearance and function of gender and gender issues in Science Fiction. The presentation is so clearly written and expertly researched, belying the breadth and depth of knowledge of a true master of the subject, that it is often easy to forget that Attebery has presented us with quite a complex argument for the role and use of gender in science fiction. This is the book we all should have written, but I’m glad we didn't because he did it better.
**This review originally appeared in the journal Reconstruction (4.3 [Fall 2005]). Decoding Gender in Science Fiction is available on Amazon.com.**
No comments:
Post a Comment