What do you think?
Rate this book
Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction
A critical exploration of the connections between science fiction and Marxism
Science fiction and socialism have always had a close relationship. Many science fiction novelists and filmmakers have used the genre to examine explicit or implicit Marxist concerns. Red Planets is an accessible and lively account, which makes an ideal introduction to anyone interested in the politics of science fiction. The volume covers a rich variety of examples from Weimar cinema to mainstream Hollywood films, and novelists from Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Philip K. Dick, and Thomas Disch to Ursula K. Le Guin, Kim Stanley Robinson, Ken MacLeod, and Charles Stross. Contributors include Matthew Beaumont, William J. Burling, Carl Freedman, Darren Jorgensen, Rob Latham, Iris Luppa, Andrew Milner, John Rieder, Steven Shaviro, Sherryl Vint, and Phillip Wegner.
Science fiction and socialism have always had a close relationship. Many science fiction novelists and filmmakers have used the genre to examine explicit or implicit Marxist concerns. Red Planets is an accessible and lively account, which makes an ideal introduction to anyone interested in the politics of science fiction. The volume covers a rich variety of examples from Weimar cinema to mainstream Hollywood films, and novelists from Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Philip K. Dick, and Thomas Disch to Ursula K. Le Guin, Kim Stanley Robinson, Ken MacLeod, and Charles Stross. Contributors include Matthew Beaumont, William J. Burling, Carl Freedman, Darren Jorgensen, Rob Latham, Iris Luppa, Andrew Milner, John Rieder, Steven Shaviro, Sherryl Vint, and Phillip Wegner.
304 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2009
14 people are currently reading
762 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 18, 2019
Thirteen essays about Marxism & science fiction. Duh. Comprehensive reading list in appendices. Much reference to Suvin’s Metamorphoses of Science Fiction, Freedman’s Science Fiction and Critical Theory, and Jameson’s Archaeologies of the Future, which are the major Marxist touchstones for the theoretical consideration of the genre, apparently.
Bould’s introduction reads Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea and The Matrix as more or less substantially identical texts through the perspective of the world market. The protagonist of the latter is said to have “achieved the impossible, gaining perfect knowledge of the system while situated inside it” (16), a reference to Godel’s incompleteness or Mannheim’s paradox or whatever. Although not tendered as definition, this is likely a decent enough description of the genre.
Beaumont: excellent paper that reads the genre through Holbein’s Ambassadors, regarding the distinction between anamorphosis (secondary world setting, say) and the anamorph (realistic setting with the intrusion of some weird), which function to decompose compositions, to defamiliarize & radicalize. These items constitute an “immanent critique of perspective” (34), which is kinda Marxism from the ground floor. Overall, a great essay.
Burling: brechtian reading of Leguin’s The Dispossessed and KSR’s Blue Mars.
Freedman: reads science fiction film through the binary of inflationary/deflationary, as contrasted with the conventions of film noir. Construes Marxism itself as possessing, dialectically, both deflationary and inflationary bits: “The deflationary dimension is represented by the attempt to destroy all illusions necessary or useful to the preservation of class society” (72). However, “Marxism ultimately aims at the positive project of human liberation and self-realization, rather than only at the negative task of destroying capitalism and other forms of class (and other) oppression” (id.). Considers Blade Runner, Dark City, 2001, Metropolis, and The Day the Earth Stood Still in detail. (Has a soft spot for Shelley’s Frankenstein, so difficult not to get aboard.) Principle is that science fiction is by definition inflationary, whereas noir is essentially deflationary.
Rieder: a consideration of Until the End of the World, but also some other films.
Shaviro: interpretation, with mockery, of ‘singularity’ theory, plus detailed critique of Kurzweil as cappy ideologue (singularity means everything is different now, man, and that we can't understand it before it happens--but the theory strangely keeps capitalist relations in place despite passage through the singularity--very 'end-of-history' a la Fukuyama!), but also in-depth consideration of Stross’ Accelerando. Very cool.
Vint: reading of inter alia Cordwainer Smith on the issue of humanity/animality—very interesting stuff here, which wants to theorize “animals as alienated labour-power” (130).
Wegner: reading MacLeod’s ‘Fall Revolution’ series via Lukacs. Kinda kickass, though I think Lukacs’ augenblick doctrine is philistine.
Luppa: very intensely localized reading of Weimar film criticism from a Marxist perspective on science fiction films—which makes it the most historically rigorous essay in the anthology. Focuses on two films: Metropolis (no surprise) and Frau in Mond. References Herf’s Reactionary Modernism, so that’s cool.
Latham: reading the New Wave via the perspective of Harvey on urbanity, with attention to Thomas Disch, Silverberg, Delany.
Jorgensen: impressive essay on Althusser, which makes use of Dick, Simak, and Leguin. Affirms that “revolution is, within itself, an absolute difference” (207). Science fiction “is not so much a Suvinian cognitive estrangement as an identification with revolutionary possibility, producing the consciousness of the absolute difference that creates it” (208). Ok. I just got a little aroused over that.
Milner: a critique of Suvin’s definition of ‘science fiction.’ Works with Bloch, Williams, Brecht.
Mieville: a critique of the sundering of ‘science fiction’ from ‘fantasy’ by Suvin and others. Works either as Marxist immanent critique of doctrine or as derridean deconstruction. Either way, very slick. Best line: “To the extent that SF claims to be based on ‘science,’ and indeed on what is deemed ‘rationality,’ it is based on capitalist modernity’s ideologically projected self-justification: not some abstract/ideal ‘science,’ but capitalist science’s bullshit about itself. This is not, of course, to argue in favour of some (perhaps lumpen-postmodernist) irrationalism, but that the ‘rationalism’ that capitalism has traditionally had on offer is highly partial and ideological” (240-41) (emphasis added – how awesome is that? Are postmodernists just lumpenized greasers?).
Great little collection. Go read.
Bould’s introduction reads Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea and The Matrix as more or less substantially identical texts through the perspective of the world market. The protagonist of the latter is said to have “achieved the impossible, gaining perfect knowledge of the system while situated inside it” (16), a reference to Godel’s incompleteness or Mannheim’s paradox or whatever. Although not tendered as definition, this is likely a decent enough description of the genre.
Beaumont: excellent paper that reads the genre through Holbein’s Ambassadors, regarding the distinction between anamorphosis (secondary world setting, say) and the anamorph (realistic setting with the intrusion of some weird), which function to decompose compositions, to defamiliarize & radicalize. These items constitute an “immanent critique of perspective” (34), which is kinda Marxism from the ground floor. Overall, a great essay.
Burling: brechtian reading of Leguin’s The Dispossessed and KSR’s Blue Mars.
Freedman: reads science fiction film through the binary of inflationary/deflationary, as contrasted with the conventions of film noir. Construes Marxism itself as possessing, dialectically, both deflationary and inflationary bits: “The deflationary dimension is represented by the attempt to destroy all illusions necessary or useful to the preservation of class society” (72). However, “Marxism ultimately aims at the positive project of human liberation and self-realization, rather than only at the negative task of destroying capitalism and other forms of class (and other) oppression” (id.). Considers Blade Runner, Dark City, 2001, Metropolis, and The Day the Earth Stood Still in detail. (Has a soft spot for Shelley’s Frankenstein, so difficult not to get aboard.) Principle is that science fiction is by definition inflationary, whereas noir is essentially deflationary.
Rieder: a consideration of Until the End of the World, but also some other films.
Shaviro: interpretation, with mockery, of ‘singularity’ theory, plus detailed critique of Kurzweil as cappy ideologue (singularity means everything is different now, man, and that we can't understand it before it happens--but the theory strangely keeps capitalist relations in place despite passage through the singularity--very 'end-of-history' a la Fukuyama!), but also in-depth consideration of Stross’ Accelerando. Very cool.
Vint: reading of inter alia Cordwainer Smith on the issue of humanity/animality—very interesting stuff here, which wants to theorize “animals as alienated labour-power” (130).
Wegner: reading MacLeod’s ‘Fall Revolution’ series via Lukacs. Kinda kickass, though I think Lukacs’ augenblick doctrine is philistine.
Luppa: very intensely localized reading of Weimar film criticism from a Marxist perspective on science fiction films—which makes it the most historically rigorous essay in the anthology. Focuses on two films: Metropolis (no surprise) and Frau in Mond. References Herf’s Reactionary Modernism, so that’s cool.
Latham: reading the New Wave via the perspective of Harvey on urbanity, with attention to Thomas Disch, Silverberg, Delany.
Jorgensen: impressive essay on Althusser, which makes use of Dick, Simak, and Leguin. Affirms that “revolution is, within itself, an absolute difference” (207). Science fiction “is not so much a Suvinian cognitive estrangement as an identification with revolutionary possibility, producing the consciousness of the absolute difference that creates it” (208). Ok. I just got a little aroused over that.
Milner: a critique of Suvin’s definition of ‘science fiction.’ Works with Bloch, Williams, Brecht.
Mieville: a critique of the sundering of ‘science fiction’ from ‘fantasy’ by Suvin and others. Works either as Marxist immanent critique of doctrine or as derridean deconstruction. Either way, very slick. Best line: “To the extent that SF claims to be based on ‘science,’ and indeed on what is deemed ‘rationality,’ it is based on capitalist modernity’s ideologically projected self-justification: not some abstract/ideal ‘science,’ but capitalist science’s bullshit about itself. This is not, of course, to argue in favour of some (perhaps lumpen-postmodernist) irrationalism, but that the ‘rationalism’ that capitalism has traditionally had on offer is highly partial and ideological” (240-41) (emphasis added – how awesome is that? Are postmodernists just lumpenized greasers?).
Great little collection. Go read.
August 17, 2025
به نظرم این کتاب خیلی تخصصی میشه، اگه یک نفر خیلی دقیق با تاریخِ علمی تخیلی آشنا نباشه یا درک درستی از مارکسیسم در دوران پست مدرن نداشته باشه کلا این کتاب براش بیمعنی میشه، مخصوصا به خاطر اصطلاحهای تخصصی و ارجاعات فراوان به کتابهای دیگه.
اما به طور کلی خوانشی که از آثار مختلف پیشنهاد میده جالبه، بیشتر از اینکه به متن آثار علمی تخیلی وابسته باشه، به مسائلی مثل نژادها، جوامع، شهرها و فرهنگ میرسه و توی آثار مختلفی (که معمولا معروفن) اونها رو بررسی میکنه و تطبیق میده با نظریههای مارکسیسیتیای که توی دوران مدرن و پست مدرن مطرح شدن.
برای من یکسریهاش جالب بود، مشخصا همه متوجه دیدگاههای مارکسیسیتی ماتریکس و ژول ورن هستن، اما اینکه آثاری مثل پایان جهان اثر ویم وندرس رو به این شکل بررسی کرده برای من واقعا خوب بود. حدس میزنم که توی این مدت آثار بیشتری توی این موضوع بخونمش، مارکیسیسم توی سایفای چیزیه که نمیشه انکارش کرد و متاسفانه من درک درستی ازش نداشتم و ندارم.
اما به طور کلی خوانشی که از آثار مختلف پیشنهاد میده جالبه، بیشتر از اینکه به متن آثار علمی تخیلی وابسته باشه، به مسائلی مثل نژادها، جوامع، شهرها و فرهنگ میرسه و توی آثار مختلفی (که معمولا معروفن) اونها رو بررسی میکنه و تطبیق میده با نظریههای مارکسیسیتیای که توی دوران مدرن و پست مدرن مطرح شدن.
برای من یکسریهاش جالب بود، مشخصا همه متوجه دیدگاههای مارکسیسیتی ماتریکس و ژول ورن هستن، اما اینکه آثاری مثل پایان جهان اثر ویم وندرس رو به این شکل بررسی کرده برای من واقعا خوب بود. حدس میزنم که توی این مدت آثار بیشتری توی این موضوع بخونمش، مارکیسیسم توی سایفای چیزیه که نمیشه انکارش کرد و متاسفانه من درک درستی ازش نداشتم و ندارم.
October 19, 2009
convincingly suggests that sf and its store of works and concepts are useful for pursuing marxian lines of inquiry, whether directly or as the implicit horizon, and without some of the tedium involved in more remote objects of literary study. a lot of these essays are exciting firstly on the level of the formula, the linking of two seemingly disparate canons of thought.
the dominant suvin/sfstudies tradition is set up in the intro along with its 'critical utopian' author relations like le guin and russ, but lots of the essayists bypass this tradition (ie. in using cordwainer smith's stories to discuss animal labour power), and the final and best section's broad theme is the critique of suvin's concepts. (mieville's afterword logically dismantles suvin's original separation of sf and fantasy.)
although it is not the book's chief purpose, i think it made me want to read/watch pretty much every work under discussion, and there is also a long and useful list of left-sf books and films in the back.
the dominant suvin/sfstudies tradition is set up in the intro along with its 'critical utopian' author relations like le guin and russ, but lots of the essayists bypass this tradition (ie. in using cordwainer smith's stories to discuss animal labour power), and the final and best section's broad theme is the critique of suvin's concepts. (mieville's afterword logically dismantles suvin's original separation of sf and fantasy.)
although it is not the book's chief purpose, i think it made me want to read/watch pretty much every work under discussion, and there is also a long and useful list of left-sf books and films in the back.
April 6, 2012
a fun and interesting book. recommended for fans of the more literary and social critique aspects of marxism as well, obviously, as sci fi in general. i wasn't familiar with a lot of the debates and referents but still very much enjoyed many of these essays.
July 8, 2024
J'attendais beaucoup, peut-être trop, de cette collection d'essais critiques sur les relations entre science-fiction et marxisme. Certains essais m'ont bien plu, mais d'autres m'ont semblé trop complexes ou obscurs, faute d'en maîtriser les références, pour que j'en tire quelque chose. J'ai survolé une bonne moitié des textes regroupés dans cet ouvrage, dont je salue l'ambition mais dont je n'étais probablement pas la cible.
May 26, 2010
I'm just going to steal the beginning of bill fletcher's review:
Red Planets is a collection of essays that offers an intricate analysis of the development of science fiction as a genre. This collection also unpacks many of the key themes in science fiction and relates them to broader struggles on the ideological plane. As such, Red Planets must be read less as an analysis of the hidden (and not so hidden) messages contained in much science fiction literature, cinema, and television, and more as an examination of how various issues of theory are struggled out within the realm of what we have come to know as science fiction.
I really liked carl freedman's article on noir and science fiction, and will try to get around to reading his book soon.
likewise andrew millner's work on raymond williams and sf (and I actually received an email about the release of a collection of williams' relevant writings edited by millner like the day after I finished this). steven shaviro, rob latham, and phillip wegner also had very strong contributions.
sherryl vint's essay lost me immediately by focusing on speciesism. don't care, sorry.
then there's darren jorgensen, whose essay is a call to arms in defense of... althusser? and who later reveals himself to be some sort of stalinist/ussr apologist? no thanks, guy.
also, only two woman contributors to the volume? for shame.
Red Planets is a collection of essays that offers an intricate analysis of the development of science fiction as a genre. This collection also unpacks many of the key themes in science fiction and relates them to broader struggles on the ideological plane. As such, Red Planets must be read less as an analysis of the hidden (and not so hidden) messages contained in much science fiction literature, cinema, and television, and more as an examination of how various issues of theory are struggled out within the realm of what we have come to know as science fiction.
I really liked carl freedman's article on noir and science fiction, and will try to get around to reading his book soon.
likewise andrew millner's work on raymond williams and sf (and I actually received an email about the release of a collection of williams' relevant writings edited by millner like the day after I finished this). steven shaviro, rob latham, and phillip wegner also had very strong contributions.
sherryl vint's essay lost me immediately by focusing on speciesism. don't care, sorry.
then there's darren jorgensen, whose essay is a call to arms in defense of... althusser? and who later reveals himself to be some sort of stalinist/ussr apologist? no thanks, guy.
also, only two woman contributors to the volume? for shame.
September 27, 2016
While this collection of essays about what has been written or filmed dealing with the societies of the future, and how those developments are intertwined with the Marxist method of scientific approach to analysis, at the same time is a compelling order to get back to the sources.
Thus your humble and unemployed reader has been thrown back to a few books already read decades ago, to fewer films watched not so long ago and, mostly, to a great deal of books never read and films never watched.
So, yours truly is now overwhelmed with the very difficult time-consuming task of catching up from Poe, Shelley and Verne, through Wells, Zamyatin, Gernsback reaching Le Guin and Dick and Gibson, up to Banks, Miéville, Robinson, among many others. Added to that several movies that passed by when watching or not plenty of others.
Finally, there are some references on the discussion about the blurred borders between Science Fiction and Fantasy to be dealt with, especially Darko Suvin, whom argues that their limits are based on the cognitive estrangements and the cognitive intentions of SF as opposed to the impossible fantasy escapes, while at the same time plenty of the science in SF is also rendered impossible by the actual one. This philosophical discussion of literature could be solved by blurring those borders. Or, as it is brilliantly put in the closing essay by China Miéville:
Red Planets we have. We should not neglect the red dragons.
Thus your humble and unemployed reader has been thrown back to a few books already read decades ago, to fewer films watched not so long ago and, mostly, to a great deal of books never read and films never watched.
So, yours truly is now overwhelmed with the very difficult time-consuming task of catching up from Poe, Shelley and Verne, through Wells, Zamyatin, Gernsback reaching Le Guin and Dick and Gibson, up to Banks, Miéville, Robinson, among many others. Added to that several movies that passed by when watching or not plenty of others.
Finally, there are some references on the discussion about the blurred borders between Science Fiction and Fantasy to be dealt with, especially Darko Suvin, whom argues that their limits are based on the cognitive estrangements and the cognitive intentions of SF as opposed to the impossible fantasy escapes, while at the same time plenty of the science in SF is also rendered impossible by the actual one. This philosophical discussion of literature could be solved by blurring those borders. Or, as it is brilliantly put in the closing essay by China Miéville:
Red Planets we have. We should not neglect the red dragons.
December 27, 2025
Science fiction at its best pushes us to see our own world in a different way and to think about what might be possible in the future. Perhaps this is why so many of its famous authors have been socialists (or at least flirted with socialist ideas). Marxism was born out of an effort to understand human society in a scientific way. For this reason, it seems a natural fit with sci-fi.
This book presents a series of essays examining the relationship between these two, traversing many wonderful examples of sci-fi from authors like Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Philip K. Dick, Ursula Le Guin, China Miéville, and more. Topics include the "cognitive estrangement" of the genre which gives us a different view of our own reality, differences and similarities between sci-fi and fantasy, colonialist attitudes in sci-fi, and urban environments in sci-fi especially cyberpunk.
Really enjoyed this one, even though some of the essays were challenging. This helped me make sense of my own enjoyment of sci-fi as someone with left wing politics and an interest in historical materialism. Also makes me want to read some fiction by China Miéville.
This book presents a series of essays examining the relationship between these two, traversing many wonderful examples of sci-fi from authors like Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Philip K. Dick, Ursula Le Guin, China Miéville, and more. Topics include the "cognitive estrangement" of the genre which gives us a different view of our own reality, differences and similarities between sci-fi and fantasy, colonialist attitudes in sci-fi, and urban environments in sci-fi especially cyberpunk.
Really enjoyed this one, even though some of the essays were challenging. This helped me make sense of my own enjoyment of sci-fi as someone with left wing politics and an interest in historical materialism. Also makes me want to read some fiction by China Miéville.
March 6, 2017
Every year or so, I pull this off the shelf to reference a particular essay and then somehow end up re-reading pretty much all of it. Long live edited collections with brisk, well-written chapters!
Read
January 12, 2022this was a really fun read and a great resource, i'm glad i ended up buying-owning it! the appendices seem great.
big takeaway is i need to read Fredric Jameson, his work on utopia and commentary on SF seemed to be pretty canonical / widespread in this spread of essays.
i really liked the way this book was organized; especially the third section being dedicated to basically critique, trying out weirder ideas to the SF theory 'canon'.
i really enjoyed "Art as 'The Basic Technique of Life'" essay, which was about how Le Guin's The Dispossessed doesn't depict art in a truly post-capitalist anarcho-socialist way, the work doesn't escape assumptions of ownership around art that our world has. It was exciting to be reminded that art wasn't, even in our world, always about entertainment (ie, religious art meant to cause discomfort).
I was also really taken by China Mieville's post-script, "Cognition as Ideology: A Dialectic of Sf Theory", which really knitted together something i've felt often while reading SF. the gist is that Suvin's 'cognition effect' of scifi has nothing to do with scientific rigor (for ex time travel or FTL travel still create the 'cognition effect' despite being literally impossible), but is instead the 'game' (as Wells calls it) of convincing an audience that something is plausible. Mieville puts a bow on this phenomenon by pointing out that the reader is essentially being charisma'd - NOT reason'd - into consenting to taking seriously something that maybe isn't realistic at all. Mieville uses the term 'consensual authority' - and points out the parallel between a reader being willingly duped by the 'expertise' of an author/text and a consumer being willingly duped by capitalistic technocrats. he is pleasingly NOT throwing Suvin out, but instead replacing the cognition effect's root from 'rationality' to something else like authority or charisma, and also by that stroke pointing out that fantasy can also therefore produce a cognition effect. this was really pleasing! i definitely always talk about SF having "sufficient" techno-babble to create a sense of rigor in my reviews; and similarly have always thought that sanderson's magic-with-rules probably had a lil somm somm going on.
other fun weird ones; "Towards a Revolutionary Science Fiction" pointing out how rightist politics isn't afraid to reference and take SF seriously - for ex Frederik Pohl worked on Reagan's Star Wars - so why don't we try taking leftist SF seriously like that too (honestly i think this take is kinda dumb but it's fun to think about what this approach DID do for politics and economics and stuff and how it COULD be different if it was better SF and frankly, better SF writers). i really enjoyed "Towards a Revolutionary Science Fiction" first of all for talking about how Dark City is underrated, but also for pointing out that the knitting of noir and SF in stuff like Blade Runner is knitting together the defeatism/critique of living under capitalism in noir with the revolutionary/utopian challenges to it in SF. obvious but still fun to follow.
yeah a lot of bangers, and for a theory book still fairly followable!! good one.
big takeaway is i need to read Fredric Jameson, his work on utopia and commentary on SF seemed to be pretty canonical / widespread in this spread of essays.
i really liked the way this book was organized; especially the third section being dedicated to basically critique, trying out weirder ideas to the SF theory 'canon'.
i really enjoyed "Art as 'The Basic Technique of Life'" essay, which was about how Le Guin's The Dispossessed doesn't depict art in a truly post-capitalist anarcho-socialist way, the work doesn't escape assumptions of ownership around art that our world has. It was exciting to be reminded that art wasn't, even in our world, always about entertainment (ie, religious art meant to cause discomfort).
I was also really taken by China Mieville's post-script, "Cognition as Ideology: A Dialectic of Sf Theory", which really knitted together something i've felt often while reading SF. the gist is that Suvin's 'cognition effect' of scifi has nothing to do with scientific rigor (for ex time travel or FTL travel still create the 'cognition effect' despite being literally impossible), but is instead the 'game' (as Wells calls it) of convincing an audience that something is plausible. Mieville puts a bow on this phenomenon by pointing out that the reader is essentially being charisma'd - NOT reason'd - into consenting to taking seriously something that maybe isn't realistic at all. Mieville uses the term 'consensual authority' - and points out the parallel between a reader being willingly duped by the 'expertise' of an author/text and a consumer being willingly duped by capitalistic technocrats. he is pleasingly NOT throwing Suvin out, but instead replacing the cognition effect's root from 'rationality' to something else like authority or charisma, and also by that stroke pointing out that fantasy can also therefore produce a cognition effect. this was really pleasing! i definitely always talk about SF having "sufficient" techno-babble to create a sense of rigor in my reviews; and similarly have always thought that sanderson's magic-with-rules probably had a lil somm somm going on.
other fun weird ones; "Towards a Revolutionary Science Fiction" pointing out how rightist politics isn't afraid to reference and take SF seriously - for ex Frederik Pohl worked on Reagan's Star Wars - so why don't we try taking leftist SF seriously like that too (honestly i think this take is kinda dumb but it's fun to think about what this approach DID do for politics and economics and stuff and how it COULD be different if it was better SF and frankly, better SF writers). i really enjoyed "Towards a Revolutionary Science Fiction" first of all for talking about how Dark City is underrated, but also for pointing out that the knitting of noir and SF in stuff like Blade Runner is knitting together the defeatism/critique of living under capitalism in noir with the revolutionary/utopian challenges to it in SF. obvious but still fun to follow.
yeah a lot of bangers, and for a theory book still fairly followable!! good one.
Read
March 16, 2020"O kadar simülatif varlıklarmışız ki bunu anlamamız için orta çağ teolojisini okumamız yeterli." Ulus Baker
Distopik bir evrenin, bilimden de kurgudan da daha düşsel bir boyutu olduğunu söyleyemeyiz. Evrenin başlıca kendisinin bir yalnızlaştırma/ötekileştirme/tekil halleştirme/sınıflaştırma durumuna sokma eyleminin bilincindeyiz. Buna çözüm olarak sunulan teknoloji, aslında biz yüzümüze -bam diye doğrulmaya yönelecek olan karşı bir silah değil mi? Boyutların kavramların salgın gibi bizi peşindne koşturduğu... Biyolojik ya da matematiksel bir matrix evreni ve bu evrende takip edilen beyaz tavşanın doğal haliyle doğum/yaşam/ölüm üçgeniyle varlığı var mıdır? Büyük bilbordlar, sunulan reklamlar, yeni yeni yeni teknolojik telefonlar ve über gelecek nesiller robotlar. Neredeler? Kurguna ne kadarı yatkın: Rüyalar ve Ursula K. Le Guin veya distopyadan kırma kısa bir anlatı için Bilge Karasu'nun post-apokaliptik evrenini okuyalım;
"Bir sabah kalktığımda, yağmur yağıyordu. Kar artıkları vardı setteki evin duvarın dibinde. Birden, insanların, bana haber vermeden, beni çağırmadan çekilip gittiği, topluca bu şehri bıraktığı duygusuna kapıldım. Çoğu arabalarını bırakmıştı. Başka araçlara binip gitmiş olsalar gerekti. Eşya taşıma şirketinin koca kamyonu mavi kapalılığıyla başka mahalleye göçecek birinin kapısı önünde kalakalmıştı. Yalnızdım bu koca mahallede. Çıt çıkmadığı için de şehrin öbür taraflarında birileri var mı yok mu karar veremiyordum. Sonra kedim pencerenin kenarına oturdu. Ben varken onda herhangi bir yalnızlık duygusu oluşmazdı. Benim için de o var yalnız. Çok sonra, uzaklarda bir araba gürültüsü.. Sona kalan mı gidiyordu?"
Bana göre bilimkurgu dediğimiz hadise bu -sona kalan mı gidiyordu'dan sonra başlıyor. Bu durumun son aşamasında da insan ve insani olama durumlarını durumlarını arıyoruz. Bazı hassas bünyeler olarak kahve yapma makinesine -günaydın, diyoruz, uyanmış şeklimizle.
Distopik bir evrenin, bilimden de kurgudan da daha düşsel bir boyutu olduğunu söyleyemeyiz. Evrenin başlıca kendisinin bir yalnızlaştırma/ötekileştirme/tekil halleştirme/sınıflaştırma durumuna sokma eyleminin bilincindeyiz. Buna çözüm olarak sunulan teknoloji, aslında biz yüzümüze -bam diye doğrulmaya yönelecek olan karşı bir silah değil mi? Boyutların kavramların salgın gibi bizi peşindne koşturduğu... Biyolojik ya da matematiksel bir matrix evreni ve bu evrende takip edilen beyaz tavşanın doğal haliyle doğum/yaşam/ölüm üçgeniyle varlığı var mıdır? Büyük bilbordlar, sunulan reklamlar, yeni yeni yeni teknolojik telefonlar ve über gelecek nesiller robotlar. Neredeler? Kurguna ne kadarı yatkın: Rüyalar ve Ursula K. Le Guin veya distopyadan kırma kısa bir anlatı için Bilge Karasu'nun post-apokaliptik evrenini okuyalım;
"Bir sabah kalktığımda, yağmur yağıyordu. Kar artıkları vardı setteki evin duvarın dibinde. Birden, insanların, bana haber vermeden, beni çağırmadan çekilip gittiği, topluca bu şehri bıraktığı duygusuna kapıldım. Çoğu arabalarını bırakmıştı. Başka araçlara binip gitmiş olsalar gerekti. Eşya taşıma şirketinin koca kamyonu mavi kapalılığıyla başka mahalleye göçecek birinin kapısı önünde kalakalmıştı. Yalnızdım bu koca mahallede. Çıt çıkmadığı için de şehrin öbür taraflarında birileri var mı yok mu karar veremiyordum. Sonra kedim pencerenin kenarına oturdu. Ben varken onda herhangi bir yalnızlık duygusu oluşmazdı. Benim için de o var yalnız. Çok sonra, uzaklarda bir araba gürültüsü.. Sona kalan mı gidiyordu?"
Bana göre bilimkurgu dediğimiz hadise bu -sona kalan mı gidiyordu'dan sonra başlıyor. Bu durumun son aşamasında da insan ve insani olama durumlarını durumlarını arıyoruz. Bazı hassas bünyeler olarak kahve yapma makinesine -günaydın, diyoruz, uyanmış şeklimizle.
February 10, 2019
As these type of books tends to be, this is a mixed bag. First of, if you are better at litterature theory then me, I think you might get more out of this. Second, I read this as a pleasure read, I think it would have worked better as part of some kind of study, as I found myself in dire need of something to write on to collect my thoughts while reading it. So, it might be a four star book with a bit of a different context. And it made me think quite a bit while readiing it, mostly on why I disagree with the authors on different points. And not on the marxist points, as a tend to agree with quite a bit of marxism, more on how it was used and the view on Marx himself.
Way to many marxists have a tendency to read Marx as christians read the bible, as a revelation not as a (big) piece of theoretical work. And by that, they need to put in somthing that Marxs said about something as that in itself proves a point they are making. That is not who we progress any type of study. Secondly, as many people who study the "less fine arts", like sci-fi, fantasy, comics or whatever, many of these writers had a tendency to come out as defenders of why sci-fi is good litterature/film. Why? Why be on the defence? Sci-fi is great litterature to use to talk about a great many things, why be on the defence? Its not Shakespeare. So what? We have way to many Shakespeare scholars as we have and way to few that study popular culture of different types. And there is really no other genre where you can write utopian fiction and really discuss the how/why/what of it. There is plenty more to say about this book and the essays in it, but that would take more time than I have.
Way to many marxists have a tendency to read Marx as christians read the bible, as a revelation not as a (big) piece of theoretical work. And by that, they need to put in somthing that Marxs said about something as that in itself proves a point they are making. That is not who we progress any type of study. Secondly, as many people who study the "less fine arts", like sci-fi, fantasy, comics or whatever, many of these writers had a tendency to come out as defenders of why sci-fi is good litterature/film. Why? Why be on the defence? Sci-fi is great litterature to use to talk about a great many things, why be on the defence? Its not Shakespeare. So what? We have way to many Shakespeare scholars as we have and way to few that study popular culture of different types. And there is really no other genre where you can write utopian fiction and really discuss the how/why/what of it. There is plenty more to say about this book and the essays in it, but that would take more time than I have.
November 20, 2025
For me, this was probably the most outstanding experience of inspecting Science Fiction through Marxist Eyes! In the historiography of SF, whatever the genre or its cultural and textual production might be or have been, one should keep in mind it is the very textual communication that breathes into the genre and its existence. This book is not about science fiction perse, it is not about Gibson, nor blade runner or some H.G.Wells story but rather a suspicious way of seeing those phenomena.
January 30, 2019
Este libro flota cómodamente entre el texto académico y el texto de interés popular. Es una aportación significativa al anaquel de lecturas críticas sobre la ciencia ficción; se debe colocar al lado de "Archeologies of the Future" y "Colonialism and the Emergence of Science Fiction".
March 17, 2015
Bilimkurgunun alt türlerine, bilimkurgunun önemli yazarlarına da kısaca da olsa yer veren Kızıl Dünyalar, nedense ülkemizde bende hala "dışlanıyor" hissini yaratan, benim pek sevdiğim bilimkurgunun Marksizm ile olan ilişkisini, belki çoğu insan için bilimkurguya bakış açılarını bile değiştirebilecek şekilde sunuyor. "Geek işi" denilip kenara atılan bu tarzın üzerine yazan siyaset, tarih, edebiyat, felsefe gibi dallarda önemli akademik yerlerde bulunan bir çok ismin imzasını barındıran bu kitabı, okuyun, okutun derim.
Kitap hakkındaki yazımın tamamı için blog'umu ziyaret edebilirsiniz.
Kitap hakkındaki yazımın tamamı için blog'umu ziyaret edebilirsiniz.
June 29, 2013
Presumes considerable understanding of theorists as diverse as Jameson, Zizek and Althusser, using somewhat cursory, even offhand references to "theory" without a lot of deep analysis. On the whole quite smart if somewhat typical lit crit. pieces. I was a little disappointed in China's end piece, worrying over the division between sci fi and fantasy -- red dragons or red planets, it all matters to him, and I guess it should to us, too.
August 9, 2013
I should not have read this book in tandem with "Between Equal Rights". I found here the less rigorous analysis somewhat disappointing, but on the whole the essays did engage. Particularly the last two. As part of a series, I am not sure I would recommend this to SF fans as it generally presents arguments SF readers will already be familiar with. Non-SF readers who are interested in Marxism may find the book more enjoyable.
August 5, 2015
Overall very strong collection of sf criticism from a Marxist perspective. Standouts for me included Bould's introduction, Sherryl Vint's piece on the treatment of animals in sf, Andrew Milner's "Utopia and Science Fiction Revisited," and China Mieville's conclusion on definitional boundaries in sf and fantasy.
Read
July 7, 2010Reviewed here.
March 27, 2013
i really, really enjoyed the last two essays. the rest of it was often boring in the ways that marxist literary critique usually are. worth it just for those two though.
Read
March 15, 2018This is a collection of academic articles. The introduction has 67 footnotes (printed immediately after the intro.) It refers to a rather academic definition of "science fiction" (and academic variations on that definition.)
The first article has an extended discussion of a painting made in 1533 (centuries before Marx or science fiction.) The painting uses "perspective" (depicting 3-dimensionality on a 2-dimentional media) in such a way that viewers see something quite different depending on the angle from which they look. From there we have a very academic discussion on how this can be analogous to science fiction literature. (It almost feels like the author made this stuff up to meet his "publish or perish" quota.)
Last year, my SF book club read Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, which included an author's introduction saying science fiction is metaphorical. And there were aspects of the book which suggested Le Guin intended to be metaphorical. However, if authors write science fiction in such a way that academics need to do such acrobatics to find the intended meaning, I think authors' messages will be lost to over 99% of readers. So, is it the authors who are being too cryptic or the academics who are finding cryptic where it wasn't intended?
The second article uses Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed and Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars to discuss depictions of the arts in stories of utopian societies. I appreciate that there are questions such as how a post-capitalist society might determine to what extent a particular artist should be considered making adequate contribution to society through art rather than other work activities. Although not explicit, the writer seemed not to conceive of utopian societies as having mass-scale arts such as today's music tours that fill arenas. I'm not so sure. The writer argues that the concept that the arts are something one enjoys is only a capitalist-era perception. I think we would need to clarify what is meant by "enjoying" a work of art (do you "enjoy" a sad song or painting that makes you cry?) I would ask in what context would a prehistoric cave painting be "art?" If it was made as part of a religious ritual, perhaps it wasn't "art" to the prehistoric people. If it was part of educating children, it may not have been considered "art." If it was part of story-telling as entertainment, perhaps it was. If it was made to be a visual stimulation to invoke an emotional reaction ("enjoyable" or not), I'd be inclined to think it had been "art." At least what we today call art may spark intellectual thought / discussion, but if that is its only effect, is it "art?"
Again, the second article is very academic. Perhaps, these will play a role in future decisions of significance. However, the articles don't seem to be discussing matters that I choose to invest more time in.
If you're still interested in trying this book, you can get an free ebook at archive.org
Readers who considered this book might be interested in seeing China Mieville's article
50 Sci-Fi & Fantasy Works Every Socialist Should Read
The first article has an extended discussion of a painting made in 1533 (centuries before Marx or science fiction.) The painting uses "perspective" (depicting 3-dimensionality on a 2-dimentional media) in such a way that viewers see something quite different depending on the angle from which they look. From there we have a very academic discussion on how this can be analogous to science fiction literature. (It almost feels like the author made this stuff up to meet his "publish or perish" quota.)
Last year, my SF book club read Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, which included an author's introduction saying science fiction is metaphorical. And there were aspects of the book which suggested Le Guin intended to be metaphorical. However, if authors write science fiction in such a way that academics need to do such acrobatics to find the intended meaning, I think authors' messages will be lost to over 99% of readers. So, is it the authors who are being too cryptic or the academics who are finding cryptic where it wasn't intended?
The second article uses Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed and Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars to discuss depictions of the arts in stories of utopian societies. I appreciate that there are questions such as how a post-capitalist society might determine to what extent a particular artist should be considered making adequate contribution to society through art rather than other work activities. Although not explicit, the writer seemed not to conceive of utopian societies as having mass-scale arts such as today's music tours that fill arenas. I'm not so sure. The writer argues that the concept that the arts are something one enjoys is only a capitalist-era perception. I think we would need to clarify what is meant by "enjoying" a work of art (do you "enjoy" a sad song or painting that makes you cry?) I would ask in what context would a prehistoric cave painting be "art?" If it was made as part of a religious ritual, perhaps it wasn't "art" to the prehistoric people. If it was part of educating children, it may not have been considered "art." If it was part of story-telling as entertainment, perhaps it was. If it was made to be a visual stimulation to invoke an emotional reaction ("enjoyable" or not), I'd be inclined to think it had been "art." At least what we today call art may spark intellectual thought / discussion, but if that is its only effect, is it "art?"
Again, the second article is very academic. Perhaps, these will play a role in future decisions of significance. However, the articles don't seem to be discussing matters that I choose to invest more time in.
If you're still interested in trying this book, you can get an free ebook at archive.org
Readers who considered this book might be interested in seeing China Mieville's article
50 Sci-Fi & Fantasy Works Every Socialist Should Read
Read
December 20, 2018hamim
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews