Lost in Space: Probing Feminist Science Fiction and Beyond

by Marleen S. Barr

Archaeologists and anthropologists discover other civilizations; science fiction writers invent them. In this collection of her major essays, Marleen Barr argues that feminist science fiction writers contribute to postmodern literary canons with radical alternatives to mainstream patriarchal society. Because feminist science fiction challenges male-centered social imperatives, it has been marginalized and dismissed from the canon--thus, lost in space. Moving beyond feminist science fiction itself, Barr goes on to examine other literary genres from the perspective of 'feminist fabulation'--a term she has coined to encompass science fiction, fantasy, utopian literature, and mainstream literature that critiques patriarchal fictions. Discussing the works of such writers as Margaret Atwood, Joanna Russ, Salman Rushdie, Paul Theroux, Ursula Le Guin, Herman Melville, Saul Bellow, Edgar Allan Poe, and Marge Piercy, Barr illuminates feminist science fiction's connections to other literary traditions and contemporary canons. Her critical analysis yields a new and expanded understanding of feminist creativity.

Genres: Science Fiction, Feminism, Fiction

231 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 1993

Reviews

[Robert Wood · Rating 3 out of 5]

The text moves from an early focus on feminist science fiction to an attempt to place feminist science fiction in the more canonical category of feminist fabulation, to be read within the framework of postmodern fiction, drawing on McHale's definition, along with the work of Robert Scholes, and finishes with a reading of the work of Rushdie and others within this framework. Barr likes to work through a series of broad comparison, linking critical work of more canonical multicultural fiction with the practices of feminist science fiction. I would have liked to see Barr push that process further, using the critical framework of science fiction studies to read other literature, but we are usually left at the level of comparison. The text also dates badly, particularly with the optimism in the Clinton administration, and other issues. I would have liked to see a stronger structural engagement with the material discussed that we see in her reading of Carnas, for instance.

I'm also considerably less concerned with the effort to transform the genre into a critically respectable one. I think we have seen this occur without the need to critically prop the subgenre on other literature. Its notable that most of the authors she discusses, have a strong engagement with pulp, particularly, Russ, Butler, and Le Guin.