Taryne Jade Taylor, Isiah Lavender III, Grace L. Dillon, and Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay, eds. The Routledge Handbook of CoFuturisms. Routledge, 2023. Hardback. 716 pg. $280.00. EBook $ 53.09. ISBN 9780367330613. EBook ISBN 9780429317828.
Version 1.0.0
Consisting of approximately seven hundred pages, compiled by four editors, including roughly sixty contributing scholars and articles, and a bewildering array of theoretical perspectives, discursive territories, and primary texts, this new, indispensable handbook is a dauntingly monumental scholarly undertaking and a capacious reference resource for students, scholars, and general readers invested in pushing the boundaries of what gets included in discussions of the global sf genre. The structure of the handbook ambitiously spans the world in its geographical reach, with four major parts, each consisting of approximately fifteen articles, devoted respectively to Indigenous futurisms, Latinx futurisms, Asian, Middle Eastern and Asian, and African and African-American futurisms. For scholarly genre criticism that regularly bemoans the lack of global perspectives in even the most theoretical endeavors, this handbook, then, is a sorely needed corrective and a propitious sign, if one was needed, that the sf genre is indeed at a transformative stage of transition.
The editor Taryn Jade Taylor’s brief “Introduction” to the volume deftly lays out the holistic focus of the handbook in clear but expansive terms that the numerous and disparate individual articles then amply support and articulate. The titular argument is that the idea of plural, fluid, and multiple “co-futurisms,” as opposed to solely alternative or critical futurisms, challenges the ritual straitjacketing of global identity and its troubling consignment of vast swaths of the globe to the so-called “margins” or “periphery.” Whether viewed as resistant or hegemonic, such a monolithic representation of divergent global voices in stark and singular categories defined by the so-called metropolitan, imperial “center” or “core” has plagued the development of compelling cosmopolitan perspectives for centuries. Co-futurism, on the contrary, implies the envisioning of a collective global future and conceives a broadening sense of inclusiveness pluralistically and in a multitude of ways not exclusively dictated by the global North or perceived restrictively as an obverse image of the Western imagination.
One discursive area of overlap that many essays have in common, then, is how works involved with what is broadly labelled the emergent literature and media of co-futurism recover from the “apocalypse (2) of colonialism” situated in the actual historical past and not necessarily the counterfactual imagined future. And one consequence of a broad-tent conception of co-futurism is what happens when readings, as those advanced by Lysa Rivera, use a particular under-explored lens, such as that of “Chicanafuturism,” to interrogate the technocultural representation of marginalized people in texts not traditionally viewed as science-fictionally oriented, such as Ana Castillo’s So Far from God (1993) and Cherrie Moraga’s The Hungry Woman: A Mexican Medea (1995). Another consequence of conceiving such cultural productions as co-futurism is the coupling of diverse localized communities together under common, strategically allied banners, such as those proposed by Kristina Andrea Baudemann’s article on Darcie Little Badger’s (Lipan Apache) “Ku Ko Né Ä” story series, which shows how these sf stories present the importance of sustainable ancestral homelands for a shared notion of indigenous futurisms.
Aside from its wide-ranging global reach and broadly construed understanding of under-represented speculative literature and media, co-futurism also speaks to the problem of internal colonization and the long-term project of de-colonizing not only the pervasive and ongoing neo-colonial systems of material, social, and military inequities and injustices but also contemporary postcolonial cultural, psychological, and literary outlooks and attitudes as well. The Somali-American Sofia Samatar, for instance, draws on the foundational work of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon to analyze Ayi Kwei Armah’s The Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born (1968) and Ousmane Sembène’s Xala (1973) for their vivid postcolonial visions of nightmarish abjection and transgressive waste. And far from valorizing disruptive otherness as inherently technologically progressive or utopian, the handbook also draws repeated attention to the way the discrepant visions of the future offered by the de-colonized global cultures are not necessarily salutary or sustainable, such as Shadya Radhi’s contribution that contrasts the corrosively oil-driven and reactionary world of what Sophia Al-Maria calls “Gulf Futurism,” which decisively contrasts with the counter-hegemonic viewpoints of what Sulaïman Majali calls “Arabfuturisms.”
Similarly, Virginia L. Conn and Gabriele de Seta mine centuries-long discourses of “sinofuturism,” including contemporary Chinese science fiction by the likes of Liu Cixin, Xia Jia, Hao Jingfang, and Chen Qiufan, to argue that such literature and media both replicates and undermines pervasive techno-Orientalist anxieties and promises. Likewise, Catherine S. Ramírez’s discussion of Alex Rivera’s short film Why Cyberaceros? (1997), Alejandro Morales’s novel The Rag Doll Plague (1991), and Guadalupe Maravilla’s performance Walk on Water (2019), explores the fantasies and nightmares of foreign labor that shape the global imaginary, especially as it pertains to Latinx migrants in the United States, and the impact such intensely charged discourses have on the vulnerable and displaced plight of undocumented transnational migrants and refugees denied citizenship protections and that countries both disavow and depend on.
Hence, although all the essays uniformly underscore the urgent need for collaborative and collective visions of better global tomorrows, most essays also wrestle, additionally, with the complicated idea that reclaiming marginality and championing inclusive futures paradoxically hazards reinforcing neocolonial hierarchies between global core and periphery rooted in the very same narratives of development, modernization, and socio-economic advancement or sectarian nationalism. One innovative strategy out of this ideological cul-de-sac that many essays take, then, is to trace the cultural work that texts perform when they eschew progressive or future-driven narratives and imagine timelines that return to the worldviews of the past conceived a nonlinear pluriverse of reborn possibilities. Joy Sanchez Taylor, for instance, invokes an influential concept from one of the editors, namely, Grace Dillon’s “biskaabiiyang”—an Anishinaabemowin term that connotes the ritual healing of a cultural homecoming or return to self—to analyze Carlos Hernandez’s The Assimilated Cuban Guide to Quantum Santeria (2016), and its hybrid mixture of both particle physics and Afro-Caribbean religion, for its dismantling of the Eurowestern addiction to investing in disruptive futures that are increasingly insecure and precarious.
Given the length constraints of this short review, the discussion above is only a fragmentary snapshot that has skimmed the surface of the mountainous research contained in this volume. I apologize for such omissions, but I know I for one gratefully look forward to regularly consulting the diverse riches of this handbook for years to come. As such a reference source, this handbook will be a necessity for academic libraries that wish to carry cutting-edge sf scholarships in the future.
Jerome Winter, PhD, is a full-time continuing lecturer at the University of California, Riverside. His first book, Science Fiction, New Space Opera, and Neoliberal Globalism, was published by the University of Wales Press as part of their New Dimensions in Science Fiction series. His second book, Citizen Science Fiction, was published in 2021. His upcoming book is on the depictions of the global imaginary in the sf oeuvre of Ian McDonald. His scholarship has appeared in The Oxford Handbook of Science Fiction, Extrapolation, Journal of Fantastic and the Arts, the Los Angeles Review of Books, Foundation, SFRAReview, and Science Fiction Studies.
Review of The Rebirth of Utopia in 21st-Century Cinema: Cosmopolitan Hopes in the Films of Globalization
Sarah Nolan-Brueck
Martín, Mónica. The Rebirth of Utopia in 21st-Century Cinema: Cosmopolitan Hopes in the Films of Globalization. Peter Lang, 2023. Ralahine Utopian Studies. Paperback. 240 pg. $60.95. ISBN 9781800794429.
Version 1.0.0
Mónica Martín has seen every Anglophone film made in the past two decades. At least, that’s the feeling one gets while reading this encyclopedic accounting of films which depict her formulation of global cosmopolitan utopianism. In this, her first book, Martín expands on themes of intersectional feminism, environmental concerns, and the political potential of film—themes that fill her previous publications in venues such as Utopian Studies and Atlantis. The Rebirth of Utopia in 21st-Century Cinema is the first monograph in Peter Lang’s “Ralahine Utopian Studies” Series to focus on film, greatly expanding the scope of collection. Martín interacts with the work of other utopian thinkers like Tom Moylan, Ruth Levitas, and Fredric Jameson, putting their theories in conversations with scholars of globalization such as Zygmunt Bauman, Gerard Delanty, and Ulrich Beck, and utopian film scholars such as Richard Dyer, Peter Fitting, and Celestino Deleyto.
In a post-pandemic era when “dystopia” feels too much like a contemporary descriptor, Martín argues, utopian thought is experiencing a needed resurgence. She states, “[t]his book contends that twenty-first-century cinema illustrates the rebirth of utopia, conceived as an open method grounded in cosmopolitan worldviews and aspirations” (2). By “open method,” Martín refers to stories which gesture toward egalitarian futures without attempting to forward a specific agenda or provide a blueprint for how such a society should operate. Rather, “[e]cocritical film spaces, caring protagonists, and cooperative networks” encourage viewers to imagine utopia as “a cosmopolitan method of critical resistance and transformative action, and also as a moral obligation toward future generations” (3).
Following the introduction, the text has four parts. The first, “The Art of Envisioning Life Otherwise: Utopia and Cinema,” sets up the framework for understanding Martín’s cosmopolitan, utopian filmic lens. Martín examines the ways in which film has become a form par excellence for depicting utopian possibilities, even though it has “been traditionally relegated to a secondary place within utopian studies in comparison to literary works” (32). Each subsequent section begins with a chapter which provides an in-depth discussion of the critical conversation surrounding the section’s focus, followed by a wide-ranging look at many films that exemplify this focus, and then a close reading of a film which showcases the focus through both plot and cinematic device.
The second part, “Hope amidst the Ashes: Cosmopolitan Horizons in Contemporary Post-apocalyptic Cinema,” begins with a chapter that discusses how “in social theories of globalization, threats, and negative consequences (like growing economic inequalities), cohabit with progress and opportunities (such as the emergence of transnational communities and ideologies)” (50). Martín examines post-apocalyptic films to consider their impulses toward either apartheid or cosmopolitan spatial solutions; she then provides a close reading of the plot and cinematic devices of The Children of Men (2006), which begins in an apartheid mode, and eventually opens into cosmopolitan interrelations and movement.
Part three, “Reformed Ontologies: Cinematic Philosophies of Hope and Care in Global Times of Crisis,” focuses on shifting global philosophy away from neoliberalism and individual gain, and toward “womb-informed nurturing dialogics” which encourage viewers to look to the future “with the eyes of those who need care and need to care for the world and others” (105). This section’s filmic overview focuses on films that depict marginalized characters surviving in worlds inimical to their well-being. Martín argues that these “survivors—with racial, gender, or class traits that lie on the margins of what counts as mainstream Hollywood—perform modes of heroic resistance that put forward inclusive imaginaries” (108). To illustrate this inclusive imaginary of survival, Martín turns to a reading of The East (2013), in which the main character, Jane Owen, discovers a new way of living by rejecting both her role as a member of the neoliberal establishment and a new opportunity to become part of an eco-militant collective. Rather, the protagonist becomes conscious of both ecological and social concerns, rejecting the violence her company helps visit on the earth, and the violence her new friends seek to visit on others to protect it.
The final part, “Intersectional Politics: Egalitarian Cultures Occupy the Streets and Movies,” takes a practical look at recent intersectional, global movements, and then examines how films “are engaging in political conversations that…contest hegemonic political models and cultures” by proposing their own “alternative paradigms” (151). In her final case study of The Hunger Games series, Martín reads Katniss as a boundary-crossing feminist hero: “Katniss’s political agency challenges the divides between identity and class politics, the personal and the political, the local and the cosmopolitan, the ecological and the social, the moral and the political”—an agency that is echoed, Martín states, in the real-life work of activists such as Greta Thunberg (180). Martín then provides a short concluding section, in which she describes cosmopolitan film as giving us a challenge: “to hope for the best and work together to see it happen” (188).
The Rebirth of Utopia in 21st-Century Cinema is unique for its willingness to engage with multiple genres, finding the cosmopolitan utopian vision in realist and science fictional narratives alike. The collection of works demonstrates a dedication to crossing boundaries—of genre, of nationality, and of narrative. Represented in this work is an incredible range of films which depict coalitional relationships between diverse peoples and celebrate moments of freedom and hope in otherwise bleak landscapes. At a time when the dystopian genre and realism can feel as though they are collapsing into each other, Martín’s restorative readings provide an archive of cinematic tools for imagining a better future.
Sarah Nolan-Brueck Sarah Nolan-Brueck is a PhD candidate at the University of Southern California, where she studies how science fiction interrogates gender. In particular, she examines the many ways SF authors question the medicolegal control of marginalized gendered groups in the United States, and how SF can support activism that refutes this control. Sarah is a graduate editorial assistant for Western American Literature. She has been previously published in Femspec, Huffpost, and has an article forthcoming in Orbit: A Journal of American Literature.
Review of Hyperspace to Hypertext: Masculinity, Globalization, and Their Discontents
Sara Martín
Christopher Leslie. From Hyperspace to Hypertext: Masculinity, Globalization, and Their Discontents. Palgrave Macmillan Singapore, 2023. Hardcover, xxxii, 514 pages. €124.79. ISBN 9789819920266.
Version 1.0.0
Christopher Leslie is an independent scholar with extensive international experience in the field of science and technology studies. He offers in his volume From Hyperspace to Hypertext: Masculinity, Globalization, and Their Discontents a triple perspective articulated by his work in STS, but also informed by science fiction studies and gender studies. Leslie retells the history of science fiction between the 1920s and the 1970s as a chronicle of how a narrow-minded coterie of white men constrained the genre. Feminist SF scholarship has provided ample evidence of this manipulation, but Leslie’s main merit is that he integrates in a single volume his detailed exposé of the entitled manipulators with a no less detailed exploration of the alternatives.
Leslie’s main thesis is that the consolidation of SF as a recognizable genre relied excessively on the paradigm by which white masculinity was presented as the only guarantor of civilized techno-scientific progress (implicitly imperialist), which prevented a more inclusive version of SF to emerge. His volume, subdivided into three main parts, considers the roles as masculinist gatekeepers of Hugo Gernsback and John W. Campbell, then, in the third part, the alternative, far more progressive work, of author and editor Judith Merrill. As the book blurb announces, the volume aims at showing how a STEM education can be “enhanced by adding the liberal arts, such as historical and literary studies, to create STEAM.” Above all, Leslie invites SF readers and scholars to reconsider the roots of the genre’s official history. His book might be described as a speculative reading of speculative fiction, since Leslie asks readers to consider how much richer SF could have been if its main editors, authors, fans, and historians had been persons with a far more open-minded outlook, instead of sexist, racist, and imperialist white men.
Leslie has carried out very intensive, solid research for his volume, which is certainly fascinating, though—it must be noted—overlong. Most academic books run today to about 250/300 pages, and it is unusual to find one which is 514 pages long (526 with the introductory notes). This is a consequence of Leslie’s enthusiasm with his research and his method. He announces in the preface that he wishes to use close reading as an ethical tool, to offer proof of how the power-hungry alliance between imperialism, masculinism, and whiteness dominated SF and of the existence of valuable alternatives. However, the long segments on women authors such as Claire Winger Harris, Leslie F. Stone, L. Taylor Hansen, C.L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, or Judith Merrill, while excellent examples of close reading, are too extensive for the purposes of the volume. An additional problem is that although the volume appears to be a chronicle, it often goes back to earlier periods already discussed, slowing down the pace of the main argument. It is, besides, doubtful, whether the title adequately describes the volume. Leslie explains in the preface that ‘hyperspace’ (a term apparently invented by John W. Campbell for his 1931 novel Islands of Space) and ‘hypertext’ (coined in 1965 by Theodore Nelson) are convenient bookends, but this is not obvious. Readers might welcome a more direct title in which keywords such as ‘whiteness,’ ‘masculinity,’ ‘civilization,’ ‘engineering,’ and ‘science fiction’ were visible, and ‘globalization’ (which is not really addressed) absent.
The section on the Gernsback era is focused on destroying the myth of the pioneering editor of Amazing Stories, to present Gernsback instead as a man who endorsed an obsolete model of individualistic science, based on the 19th century gentleman amateur. The appeal of this old-fashioned model, which Gernsback marketed as an editor between 1926 and 1936, was that it opposed the development of corporate science during the so-called Second Industrial Revolution. The young men being drafted into techno-scientific establishments as mere cogs in the machine, or being educated in the new engineering degrees, Leslie argues, found comfort in the stories of isolated geniuses found in the plots of Gernsback’s authors.
Women, Leslie notes, were not specifically excluded, but their “paucity” as “editorial advisors and inventors reflects a new effort by science and engineering experts to create a masculine domain” (21), which colonized most of 1920s and 1930s SF. Gernsback promoted an SF that showed male readers how to be men, naturalizing the “adaptable autodidact” as a man “capable of action in disparate contexts,” who is “most effective” (21) wherever the rational mind prevails. For Leslie, Gernsback’s main sin is that he espoused obsolete science that smacked of long-rejected Lamarckian and social Darwinist tenets, selling in the process a white supremacism that most male authors and readers embraced. Far from being a force for progress, Gernsback rejected any alternative visions provided by women authors, and backed male authors such as E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith, whose inventive space opera lacked scientific accuracy and promoted racial pseudoscience.
This hypocritical lack of a solid scientific foundation and the dubious gender and race politics persisted under Campbell’s long reign, from 1938 to 1971, when he died. The Campbell era, which Leslie analyzes in Part II, only ended for good in 2019, when he was finally outed as a bigoted racist and misogynist and his name taken out of the distinction Analog was awarding to honor him since 1973. Leslie explains that Campbell’s fierce control of his authors and their fiction lowered standards, by imposing a model basically derived from boys’ adventures, which he had surreptitiously used in his own fiction. “His work,” Leslie writes, “squarely fits into mainstream ideas about manliness and civilization, directly connecting the burgeoning field of science fiction to the discourse about adolescents, who will be the backbone of a new global civilization” (192), specifically in Cold War times.
Leslie devotes in this Part II a whole chapter to Isaac Asimov, arguably Campbell’s main discovery together with Robert A. Heinlein. Leslie chastises Asimov because, despite being a Jewish man who had endured plenty of anti-Semitism, his own sexism and personal misconduct toward women became obstacles in the necessary transformation of SF into a far more inclusive field, particularly from the 1960s onward. As an editor, Leslie maintains, Asimov could have done much more to promote women authors but his self-presentation as an open-minded man actually masked a deep misogyny, which was not overtly questioned until the early 1970s.
Lacking the ingrained prejudices of men like Gernsback, Campbell or Asimov, Leslie argues, Judith Merrill opened up SF to new authors and readers, selecting for her yearly anthologies, published between 1955 and 1968, authors usually excluded by her male predecessors and colleagues (such as Samuel R. Delany). Although Merrill has been neglected in the official history of SF, Leslie claims, she did plenty to make the genre accessible to a mainstream readership and helped to open it up beyond the link between masculinity and technology, welcoming themes that eventually constituted the core of the New Wave. Instead of the individualism of Cold War masculinity, she promoted community, taking her political protest against the USA to the point of self-exile to Canada in 1969. According to Leslie, “Today’s effort to make science fiction more inclusive can be traced back to Merril’s” (408), and though this may be an exaggerated claim, there are indeed many reasons to celebrate this admirable woman as author and editor.
Part III concludes with chapter 9, “Science Fiction and the University,” in which Leslie openly criticizes how the new Science Fiction Studies of the 1970s relied, essentially, on the same masculinist discourse that Gernsback and Campbell had built. He complains that “It would have saved some time if science fiction’s entry into the university had been better informed about the genre” (500) and if the “filtering effect of fans infatuated by masculinist thinking” (500) had been counteracted much earlier with the identity politics and feminist scholarship that only flourished in the 1990s.
Leslie is adamant that “the false narrative” (488) by which men claimed that women were not interested in science or in science fiction is taking too long to dismantle and he is clearly disappointed that SF has not done more to disassemble it. The pity is that whereas SF offers the possibility of writing alternate history, in Science Fiction Studies we cannot build a wholly different version of the history of the genre. As Leslie does, and as countless feminist scholars have done before him, the version we have can be amended at particular points and corrected in its overall narrative arc, but we will never have an SF that started as a fully inclusive genre and that avoided the white masculinist pitfalls that Leslie describes so well. At least we can hope for a better future for the genre and its readers.
Sara Martín is Senior Lecturer in English Literature and Cultural Studies at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Dr Martín specializes in Gender Studies, particularly Masculinities Studies, and in Science-Fiction Studies. Her most recent books are American Masculinities in Contemporary Documentary Film (2023) and Detoxing Masculinity in Anglophone Literature and Culture (2023, co-edited with M. Isabel Santaulària). Dr. Martín is the translator of Manuel de Pedrolo’s Catalan masterpiece Mecanoscrit del segon origen (Typescript of the Second Origin, 2018).
Review of Un-American Dreams: Apocalyptic Science Fiction, Disimagined Community, and Bad Hope in the American Century
Pedro Ponce
J. Jesse Ramírez. Un-American Dreams: Apocalyptic Science Fiction, Disimagined Community, and Bad Hope in the American Century. Liverpool University Press, 2022. Liverpool Science Fiction Texts and Studies. Paperback. 264 pg. $39.99. ISBN 9781835537718. eISBN 9781800854475.
Version 1.0.0
An alternate title for J. Jesse Ramírez’s provocative study of 20th century apocalyptic narratives could arguably be Apocalypse: This Time It’s Personal. Ramírez refers to himself as “a child of apocalypse” in the preface: “I was born on the east—that is to say, brown—side of San José, California, when it wasn’t just the Capital of Silicon Valley but also the PCP Capital of the World. It was the beginning of Reagan’s Morning in America and the last decade of the Cold War” (ix-x, x). Reflecting on his own recurring dreams of apocalypse, Ramírez asks a question that will haunt each subsequent chapter and its reckoning with American end-time pop culture: “Why, then, do I always come back?” (ix).
The short answer is that for the apocalyptic dreamer, apocalypse is beside the point. Apocalypse, in its current usage, is impossible to imagine and represent because it requires knowledge of a world in which humanity as we understand it no longer exists. Put another way by historian Paul Boyer, “‘The only adequate television treatment of nuclear war […] would be two hours of a totally blank screen’” (207). Ramírez’s real focus is pseudo-apocalypses, which he defines in his introduction on “The Uses of Pseudo-Apocalypse” as “speculative negations of the postwar United States that situate the reader and viewer in relation to what cultural producers think America is and can—and cannot—become” (8). The selection of primary texts spans the years 1945 to 2001, corresponding to what some identify as the American Century, from postwar triumph to post-9/11 homeland. These are also the years when, in Ramírez’s assessment, science fiction became a staple of American popular culture, no longer limited to the niches of pulps and comic books. “For apocalyptic sf was the shadow cast by the brilliance of American superpower,” the author writes, “the bad conscience of the shift from ‘empire’ to ‘century,’ the negative that gestated like an alien parasite in the gut of the positive” (5).
Ramírez devotes much of Chapter 1, “The Last American: Earth Abides, Speculative Anthropology, and Settler Utopianism,” to the titular novel by Berkeley English professor George R. Stewart. Critical reception of Earth Abides, published by Random House in 1949, reflected a growing respect for science fiction after its futuristic fantasies turned to reality with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Praised by The New Yorker, Stewart’s novel tracks the human survivors of a deadly plague. The plague disrupts a human world overtaken by technology and thoughtless consumption, “the definitive flaw in the national character whose speculative transcendence is motivated by pseudo-apocalypse” (45). But digging more deeply, Ramírez discerns the persistence of racial hierarchies within Stewart’s ostensibly post-racial utopia: his white protagonist Isherwood “Ish” Williams sees his mixed-race wife Emma more as a pragmatic resource than an equal in this new world order, and this order itself depends on erasing the Indigenous past from the land that Ish hopes to resettle with his “Tribe,” the name used to designate Ish’s surviving group. Writes Ramírez, “the novel’s concluding image of the plague survivors as a tribe of white Indians proves that it’s easier to imagine the end of civilization than the end of the white desire to ‘go native’” (49).
In Chapter 2, “The Revelation of Philip K. Dick,” Ramírez assesses Dick’s status as an apocalyptic author by considering three of his novels: Dr. Bloodmoney, or, How We Got Along after the Bomb (1965), Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968), and VALIS (1981). While popularly associated with dystopian films like Blade Runner (1982—adapted from Androids)and Minority Report (2002—adapted from his short story), Dick emerges here as something of a utopian. The World War III of Dr. Bloodmoney features survivors who eschew corporate capitalism for the more modest prosperity of small business. “Dick doesn’t roll history all the way back to pre-capitalist modes of production, as George Stewart does,” Ramírez notes, “but his hope is equally damaged, equally bastardized by a capitalist realism that can imagine the future only as the sacrificial return to a ‘regular’ and outmoded past” (98). And the religion of Mercerism, so central to Androids, connects with Dick’s own personal relationship to Christianity, which informs his later work and spirituality. While acknowledging that “Dick’s presentation of Mercerism is far from uncritical,” Ramírez also observes, “It was the Pauline spirit of reformation that activated Dick’s sense that another Christianity, one beyond the neo-fundamentalisms of the evangelicals and the tired orthodoxies of the churches, was possible” (101).
Ramírez turns to film in Chapter 3, “National Insecurity in Night of the Living Dead.” The influence of George A. Romero’s classic (1968) can still be felt by fans of zombie films today. According to Ramírez, Romero’s influences included an unlikely source: American Cold War civil defense: “the national security state’s project to reeducate and train the US population for the ever-present possibility of nuclear war was itself a speculative fiction that peddled the illusion that nuclear war is survivable because it’s basically the same as conventional war” (115). But the resilience required for disaster preparedness does not account for the racial tensions between survivors captured by Romero. The presence of Ben, a black survivor of the zombie apocalypse, reveals the blind spot in what Ramírez calls “national security sf, which, like civil defense itself, took the white suburban family as its model and segregated African Americans in the cities that would have been targeted first in a nuclear war” (126). Ben’s exclusion from civil defense is made clear when he is killed by a member of a white rescue party. “Whereas national security sf celebrates the defeat of the un-American and the return to normality,” Ramírez writes, “Night implicates this bad hope in the renewal and preservation of an American Century whose security is founded on racist violence” (136).
Chapter 4, “How to Bring Your Kids up Alien: Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis Trilogy,” considers its subject in the context of the Reagan years. Science fiction blockbusters like Star Wars (1977)and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) reflected the values behind Ronald Reagan’s successful presidential campaign: “Reaganite hegemonizing mobilized popular-cultural representations of Americanness that fused neoliberal economics with traditionalist ideologies of family and race” (142). The Reagan campaign’s sanguine attitude toward nuclear weapons inspired Butler to compose her trilogy of novels—Dawn (1987), Adulthood Rites (1988), and Imago (1989)—in which the survivors of a nuclear war must breed with aliens in order to survive. Ramírez observes, “pseudo-apocalypse gives Butler an alibi for speculating about whether sexual reproduction with a radically different form of life can alter the otherwise intractable hierarchy that founds Reagan’s America” (147). While Butler today is credited with building sf worlds that are more inclusive than those of her more canonical peers, Ramírez engages with her complex legacy as an apocalyptic dreamer who seems to connect hope for humanity’s future on traditional reproduction: “Butler never fully overcomes reproductive futurism. Xenogenesis’s bad hope is in some ways anti-queer, a heteronormative wish fulfillment that makes homosexuality and other antinormative desires useless and unthinkable. On the other hand, the radical otherness of alien sex serves as a pretext in Xenogenesis for speculation about queer sexualities and futures after the American Century” (148-149).
Chapter 5, “Waiting for the Martians: Independence Day and the Second American Century,” tackles one of the most iconic sf blockbusters of the 1990s. Ramírez credits director Roland Emmerich with imbuing the 1996 film with “global Americana” (184). When an alien invasion threatens the entire globe, our heroes unite under an inclusive banner that looks suspiciously like American imperial hegemony:
The aliens are represented as an undifferentiated horde with dark skin, oval eyes, unintelligible forms of communication, and blatant disregard for national borders. Second, human international unity is represented as an extension of America’s internal racial harmony. This second unity grounds the first; the United States can represent universal humanity because it’s already a nation of nations, the united races of America. (194)
Readers of Ramírez’s meticulous ideological autopsy will never hear the film’s signature speech—when President Thomas J. Whitmore (Bill Pullman) equates alien defeat with “our” independence day—in the same way again.
In his conclusion, “Pseudo-Apocalypse after the American Century,” Ramírez uses 9/11 as a kind of test case for the ideas in his previous chapters. This is by no means a trivializing thought experiment; for some witnesses, the scale of the attacks could only be processed in terms of Hollywood. “September 11 was movielike,” Ramírez reflects, “not simply because the attacks were visually similar to disaster movies; more importantly, our déjà vu was rooted in apocalyptic sf’s rituals of disimagined community. […] And in the event’s aftermath, when the attacks became a pretext for the United States to wage wars of imperial renewal in Afghanistan and Iraq, 9/11 repeated apocalyptic sf’s utopian motivation” (206).
While not necessarily a book only for specialists, the curious generalist should have a solid command of theory, Marx and Lacan in particular. It’s tempting to invite the general reader into this dense but rewarding study of sf apocalypse. Americans continue their apocalyptic dreaming, if the post-pandemic “normal” and the 2024 election cycle is any indication. The persistence of this dream—the apparent impossibility of imagining a future without it—suggests that, far from being a divided nation, we aren’t divided enough.
Pedro Ponce teaches writing and literary studies at St. Lawrence University. His latest publication is The Devil and the Dairy Princess: Stories (Indiana University Press), winner of the Don Belton Fiction Prize and a finalist for the 2021 Big Other Book Award for Fiction. His reviews have appeared recently in the Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, and in Foundation: The International Review of Science Fiction.He is the 2024 winner of The Tom La Farge Award for Innovative Writing, Teaching and Publishing.
Review of The Palgrave Handbook of Global Politics in the 22nd Century
Sébastien Doubinsky
Laura Horn, Ayşem Mert, and Franziska Müller, eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Politics in the 22nd Century. Palgrave, 2023. Hardcover. xi + 437 pg. $199.99. ISBN 9783031137211. Ebook $149.00. ISBN 9783031137228.
Version 1.0.0
The Palgrave Handbook of Global Politics in the 22nd Century is an extraordinarily ambitious and exciting book, which sets academic publications in a quantum state, as it conflates two absolute antinomic identities: speculative fiction and solid scientific research.
The volume, which presents itself as an anthology of academic articles, is edited by three established researchers: Laura Horn is an associate professor at the University of Roskilde, in the department of Social Sciences and Business; Ayşem Mert is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University; and Franziska Müller is Assistant Professor for Globalization and Climate Governance at the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg. As they state in their introduction, dated some time after 2072, “the book seeks to open up a glimpse into the many worlds, and by extension many futures, of contemporary global politics,” based on a new discipline called “quantum social science,” (2) which appeared, according to the authors, after a scientific breakthrough and a number of related political, social, and climate crises.
The volume is divided into six sections (“Theory and Concepts,” “(In)Security,” “Governance and Technology,” “The Anthropocene,” “Culture and Identity,” “Practices and Reflections”), followed by a conclusion written by the editors. All articles are written from a 22nd century perspective, reflecting both on the “present” state of the world and events and situations of the past—that is, our very own 21st century. To give an idea of the scope of the book, here are some chapter titles: “The Evolution of Global Society Theory” (Barry Buzan); “Strategic Partnerships in Twenty-Second Century Global Politics: From Weathering Storms to the Politics of Anticipation” (Andriy Tyushka and Lucyna Czechowska); “’Big Daddy Don’t Like That!’ Global Rule by Planetary Algorithm” (Ronnie D. Lipschutz ); The UNCorp Quantum Mechanism for Wellbeing” (Isabella Hermann), just to name a few.
Each part and article focuses on some aspect of socio-economics and political science (in the largest sense possible) as well as methodologies and analysis tools through case studies. Each author uses a blend of contemporary sources (20th and early 21st century) and imaginary sources from the future (22nd century). In the introduction, we learn that this academic revolution is mainly based on two 20th and 21st centuries authors, Ted Chiang and Douglas Adams. The double reference is both surprising and amusing, but defines very well the DNA of the book: on the one hand, we find the complex and paradoxical narratives of Chiang and on the other, the extreme (and often comical) relativity of scientific theories found in Adams’s stories.
Concerning the latter, we are told that:
Fundamentally instrumental in this was the revalidation of late twentieth-century philosophical thought, in particular the work of Douglas Adams. His seminal pentalogy HHGTTG did not get recognition upon publication other than as a novel, whereas by the mid-2030s it had been established that it had, in fact, much to say on the subject of parallel universes. (3)
As for Chiang’s influence, it is stated that:
The qurative turn was a natural consequence of the quantum revolution. Social scientists found a starting point in Chiang’s visionary text from 2019, where he posed the questions that would come to define quration… Can a single quantum event by itself lead to visible changes between the two branches? Is it possible for broader historical forces to be studied using prisms? (6)
The essays in this volume are thus extremely interesting quantum objects themselves, as they simultaneously draw on various historical, scientific, and fictional elements. The reader can thus choose to define what they observe according to their own position: political and social fictions, serious predictions, or pure fiction, just to give an idea of the many possible identities that can be affixed to each and every article in the volume.
There is a common trait, however, to all these predictive narratives: like science fiction, they put our present times in perspective and make the reader reflect on the realities that they are confronted with on a daily basis, whether it is geopolitics, religion, society, climate, environment or even academic research and theories. In many ways, this “handbook” will remind many readers of Stanislaw Lem’s “Solaristics,” that is to say the published research on Solaris, the mysterious living planet which is impossible to communicate with, and even define or analyze properly. In Solaris (1961), solaristics are vain and lead nowhere—it’s just an accumulation of hypothesis and useless knowledge. What this volume points at is in many ways the same that Lem does, except that it accepts our reality (the Solaris planet in Lem’s novel) as an ever-changing complexity, in order to playfully (but also seriously) reveal the limits and the flaws of our scientific reflection on the current global state of the planet. By simultaneously de-framing and re-framing our traditional understandings of socio-economics, political science, and sociology, The Palgrave Handbook of Global Politics in the 22nd Century actually offers us true insights on the world we are living in, as well as possible alternatives to our traditional ways of thinking and—most importantly—implementing solutions to the problems we are confronted with.
As a conclusion, we could say that this volume is a terribly useful book for all those who are tired of the common ideological discourses and are looking for other solutions. If not truly a “Solarpunk” book, it nonetheless gives us a reasonable hope that the academics of the future will prove more imaginative than the dominant schools of today. And “speculative science” would by all means be a welcome and much necessary new field.
Seb Doubinsky is a bilingual French dystopian writer and poet. He is the author of the City-States Cycle, comprising, among others, The Babylonian Trilogy,The Song Of Synth, Missing Signal, The Invisible, and Paperclip. Missing Signal, published by Meerkat Press, won the Bronze Foreword Reviews Award in the Best Science-Fiction Novel category in 2018. He lives in Denmark with his family and teaches literature, history and culture in the French department of Aarhus University.
Female Robots in Flux: A Diachronic Exploration of Gender, Power, and Feminism
Mengmeng Zhu
Artists and writers from all cultures and eras have displayed a fascination with the theme of “creating women.” Indeed, this fascination has manifested as the golden maidens crafted by Hephaestus, Pygmalion’s marble statue from Greek mythology, the ghostly beauties of Chinese folklore, and, more recently, love dolls, robotic companions, and female AIs. These “manufactured women” are often shaped by male desire. Like their predecessors from antiquity and folklore, the female robots of the mechanical and digital age are also frequently shaped by male desire and portrayed as alluring beauties, virtuous saints, or dangerous femme fatales—figures that resonate with the representations of femininity that have been explored in film and media theory. In her seminal work on the male gaze, Laura Mulvey argues that in classical cinema, women are often positioned as passive objects of male visual pleasure (62). Kelly Oliver (453–455) extends this observation to contemporary media, pointing out that the male gaze not only reduces women to objects of sexual desire but also exerts control over their bodies. Andreas Huyssen (230) also contributes to the discussion of the male gaze by noting how technology itself is often gendered as female in male-dominated narratives, further demonstrating how technological advancement often triggers fears of female autonomy. In his analysis of Metropolis (1927), Huyssen uses the image of the female robot named Maria to illustrate how technology—often perceived as both alluring and threatening—is gendered female (230). Maria, as a robot, encapsulates men’s dual fear of women and technology. This dual fear, which is central to many female robot narratives, is composed of both a desire for control and a feeling of anxiety over losing control (Huyssen 227).
These recurring fantasies rooted in control and fear have influenced the formation of a typical narrative structure in female robot narratives. As Minsoo Kang summarizes, stories about female robots often employ clichéd motifs, such as the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, the juxtaposition of objects of desire and objects of fear, and stories that combine the impulse to control female bodies with the anxiety that arises from the potential loss of that control (5). These motifs, which are constantly evolving, continue to shape contemporary science fiction literature and films. Whether represented as alluring beauties, virtuous saints, or dangerous femme fatales, these female robots are denied agency and are instead subordinated to the male gaze. Consequently, it is challenging to identify an “authentic” female perspective within science fiction narratives. How, then, can these narratives of female robots be reevaluated? Can they be interpreted as a series of stories about the gender dynamics between men and women?
To answer these questions, this study traces the changes in these robot stories rather than focusing on a single story and its female characters. This reframing highlights the potential for rethinking stories of female robots within their social-historical contexts in order to identify both oppressive structures and potential moments of resistance and transformation. First, female robot narratives are often perceived as repetitive stories of male control and the fear of losing control. As a consequence of this focus, there is also a lack of robust analysis of these misogynistic female robot narratives within the context of the historical development of feminism. A diachronic approach may allow for research to overcome the limitations imposed by the male gaze and underlying misogyny. Such limitations often overshadow potential expressions of female agency and resistance, reinforcing traditional power dynamics.
Second, while Julie Wosk, in her book My Fair Ladies: Female Robots, Androids, and Other Artificial Eves, insightfully analyzes different female robots from a historical perspective and traces two parallel narratives—men trying to use technology to create the “ideal woman” and women using the same tools to shape autonomous identities (8). She does not connect the female robots to the four waves of Western feminism. If we consider these dynamic changes within the context of Western feminist movements, it becomes clear that these two narratives are interwoven. Narratives about female robots continually rewritten in fiction and film are shaped both by men and women. Behind the changes in female robots lies the persistent struggle of women in society, who have fought for their civil rights and worked to change their circumstances over the centuries. Even if it is difficult to identify women’s own voices in female robot stories that are dominated by the male gaze, a diachronic perspective can reveal that these representations of female robots—and, by extension, women—are deeply influenced by the conditions faced by actual women in society.
Therefore, this paper begins by introducing a diachronic approach to emphasize how narratives about female robots shift over time. Following this approach, the study reinterprets the recurring themes of female robots in science fiction literature and film within their specific social and historical contexts, particularly in relation to the successive waves of Western feminism. This perspective sees female robot stories as constantly evolving and changing. With this approach, the tropes of female robots in Western science fiction and film that have reoccurred from the nineteenth to twenty-first century can be viewed as allegorical expressions of social and cultural change. Additionally, my approach explicates how “stories of men” intersect with feminist struggles, with the narratives influencing and shaping one another. Hence, I also focus on the male protagonists in these stories as men who often seek to create or possess female robots and explore how their interactions with female robots lead to shifts in their perceptions of women. These shifts in perspective are not limited to the worlds of these films and literary works; rather, they reflect actual changes in social norms. The remainder of the essay is structured into two parts: the first part outlines the four waves of feminism and introduces female robot science fiction texts produced in different historical contexts. The second part analyzes these female robot stories and the male figures within them, framed within the historical trajectory of feminism.
Tracing the Four Waves of Feminism and Female Robot Narratives
Although representations of artificially created humans did exist in antiquity—such as in the form of golden maidens and bronze giants—they differed significantly from modern representations of robots, which have been directly shaped by the mechanization that followed the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, this paper regards pre-Industrial Revolution automata as “quasi-robots” and considers the mechanical beings that emerged in contemporary popular culture after the Industrial Revolution as “true” robots that are the products of both the mechanical and digital ages. Despite their symbolic continuity, this study focuses specifically on the latter and, therefore, begins its analysis with late nineteenth-century robotic fantasies.
As Raymond Williams suggested, an active process of mediation occurs between literary works and social reality (97). Science fiction stories about female robots are deeply intertwined with changes in the real world. Indeed, over the past two centuries, the fantasy of female robots has evolved alongside four successive waves of feminism that, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, have significantly shaped Western society. This parallel development suggests that the narratives surrounding female robots reflect not only male desire but also women’s ongoing quest for autonomy. A diachronic approach enables a shift in focus from recurring themes to the dynamic evolution of the relationship between gender and power. More specifically, it illuminates how women’s demands for agency have transformed over time and how men have selectively accepted or resisted these pursuits. Stories of female robots are continually rewritten and reinterpreted within different social and cultural contexts; they are also continually re-created at new historical junctures. Therefore, as a key framework for understanding such narratives, this study traces these historical contexts from a diachronic perspective within the context of the four waves of feminism.
By the early nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution had thoroughly transformed Europe and the United States, driving women out of the home and off the farm and into workplaces, particularly factories, where their labor was cheaper than that of men (Tilly 125). This economic incentive led to the widespread employment of women by capitalists seeking to reduce costs and maximize profits. Nevertheless, despite working for lower wages, women continued to be responsible for domestic duties upon returning home. Women were regarded as “half citizens” who were largely excluded from political participation and were denied the right to vote (Egge 1; Tilly 134). Moreover, their entry into the workforce was met with resistance from men. Men perceived female workers as occupying jobs that rightfully belonged to men while also undermining husbands’ authority within the family (Tilly 133). Many women had entered the workforce by the early twentieth century. However, their positions, wages, opportunities for advancement, and political rights remained severely restricted. This triggered the first feminist wave, which focused on suffrage and legal equality. This feminist wave decried women’s profound lack of economic, social, and political rights (Mohajan 9).
Women’s fight for suffrage and legal equality from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s is now regarded as the “first feminist wave.” In 1968, American journalist Martha Lear published a manifesto-like article in The New York Times titled “The Second Feminist Wave: What Do These Women Want?” The article recognized this period from 1850 to 1920 as the first feminist wave and designated the post-1960s feminist movement as the “second wave.” The second wave of feminism marked a significant turning point in women’s political agency, as it broadened the struggle for gender equality beyond the quest for suffrage. In addition, second-wave feminists paid attention to systemic issues impacting women’s personal lives, such as workplace rights, reproductive autonomy, and the pervasive gender inequalities maintained by patriarchal structures. Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique (1963) played a critical role in this second wave. It challenged the societal norms that confined women to domestic roles. Friedan pointed out that the emptiness and dissatisfaction felt by many housewives was actually a societal and political problem rather than a personal problem. That is, this emptiness and dissatisfaction was a result of the social pressure for women to become perfect wives and mothers, which bound a woman’s self-worth to her femininity (Friedan 11–27). These concerns raised by Friedan are closely related to the themes of The Stepford Wives, which will be discussed in the next section.
The third feminist wave emerged in the early 1990s. Rebecca Walker introduced the term “third wave” in her 1992 article “Becoming the Third Wave.” The third wave emphasized diversity and individualism. Advocates promoted a more inclusive understanding of femininity while critiquing the second wave’s limitations, particularly its focus on the experiences of white, middle-class women at the expense of women of other races, classes, and sexual orientations (Walker 86–87). By the early 2010s, the fourth wave of feminism had emerged, fueled by digital platforms. With the fourth wave, women were encouraged to openly discuss their experiences of sexual harassment and assault. They protested gender discrimination and injustices of various forms, including workplace harassment, slut-shaming, and violence against women (Munro 22–25). The #MeToo movement, which spread across multiple countries, epitomizes this wave. Women of all types, from Hollywood stars to everyday individuals, broke their silence and publicly shared their experiences of sexual violence in an effort to advance social justice (Storer and Rodriguez 161).
These four waves of feminism were not isolated events but rather interconnected, self-reflective, and evolving movements that shaped the “history of women” across three centuries. Re-reading science fiction narratives about female robots within these historical contexts reveals that the seemingly repetitive stories of female robots actually constitute a dynamic process of change. In the following section, I first discuss George Haven Putnam’s science fiction novel The Artificial Mother: A Marital Fantasy (1894). This story was written and published during the first feminist wave. Next, I analyze the 1972 novel The Stepford Wives and the 1975 film adaptation within the context of the second feminist wave. Subsequently, I explore how female robots changed in the 2004 remake of The Stepford Wives and discuss it in the context of the third feminist wave. Finally, I shift to the most recent science fiction narrative discussed in this essay, the film Ex Machina (2015), which reimagines female robots against the backdrop of the fourth feminist wave. My analyses of these texts are intended to illustrate the general potential of diachronic reading.
The Changing Gender Dynamics of Female Robot Stories
Dustin Abnet points out that one of the most emblematic robots of the nineteenth century was the Steam Man, a steam-powered iron figure that first appeared in 1868 (42). This robot, depicted as a male with white skin, symbolized the triumphs of industrial civilization. In contrast, female robots of the era were not granted the same prestige; they were often portrayed as foolish or undesirable. For instance, in 1882, the Automatic Toy Works company advertised a comical female robot toy designed to satirize contemporary feminists (Figure 1; Abnet 52–54). Similarly, many robot narratives of this time depicted female robots as irrational, prone to madness, and destructive (Abnet 62–68). These gendered stereotypes in the portrayal of female robots become more understandable when viewed within the historical context of the nineteenth century, as women had not yet achieved even basic legal and political status as citizens at this time.
Figure 1. An automaton in 1882 as a satirical representation of suffragism (Abnet 33)
In 1894, George Haven Putnam published a science fiction story about a female robot titled The Artificial Mother. In the preface, Putnam notes that the story had been written a quarter of a century earlier, which coincides with the onset of the first wave of feminism. The novel begins with a husband lamenting that all of his wife’s time is consumed with caring for the children and managing household chores, leaving her with no time for him. This reflects the gender norms of the time: Women were expected to handle household duties and childcare while also caring for their husbands. Failing to meet these expectations would provoke the husband’s dissatisfaction. This pressure underscores the plight of women. Frustrated by the lack of attention from his wife, the husband attempts to create a steam-powered “artificial mother” to take over her maternal responsibilities. However, his wife resists this “mechanical mother” and ultimately destroys the robot. Her frantic destruction of the robot further traps her in her maternal role; the male protagonist, however, sees this as his wife’s problem rather than his own. Through its depiction of the wife’s irrational behavior and the failure of the robot, this story positions men as victims and reflects the gender biases of the 1860s and 1870s.
Another revealing passage appears in the preface: Putnam, with a tone of deep sympathy, dedicates the work to “the oppressed husbands and fathers of this land, and to those unwary young men who may be contemplating marriage” (3). This emotional statement exposes the male sentiment that underlies late nineteenth-century female robot fantasies: Ungrateful women are ruining the happiness of families, and men are being forced to endure the oppression of their so-called mad wives. Nevertheless, not long before the victories of the first feminist wave, female writers were already beginning to use parody and appropriate female robot stories to challenge these male-centered fantasies (Abnet 67).
Nearly eight decades later, a more nuanced exploration of gender dynamics appeared in the 1972 science fiction novel The Stepford Wives. Both the original novel and the 1975 film adaptation tell the story of Joanna and her family moving to Stepford, a beautiful yet unsettling town where women seem entirely absorbed in domestic chores and show no interest in anything outside the home despite their previous remarkable achievements in society. Meanwhile, the town’s men have formed a society that completely excludes women. Joanna eventually uncovers the horrifying truth: All the women in Stepford have been murdered and replaced by sexually compliant and docile robot wives controlled by their husbands. Joanna and her friend Bobbie symbolize the feminist pioneers of the second wave, who relentlessly advocated for women’s broader participation in social affairs while trying to awaken the consciousness of women confined to domestic roles. The novel also explicitly references Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, positioning this science fiction story as an allegory of second-wave feminism.
Like Putnam’s novel, The Stepford Wives portrays female robots as empty-headed, artificial wives; however, the men in the narrative have undergone a significant transformation. The town of Stepford is home to a men’s association based out of a nineteenth-century mansion, which symbolizes the association’s outdated ideology and practices. The politicians, philanthropists, and public figures of the town are all deeply involved in the association, which excludes women. When Walter, the male protagonist, and Bobbie’s husband express a desire to join the association, Joanna questions why Walter would want to be part of such an antiquated organization. Walter replies, “I spoke to some of the men on the train… They agree that the no-women-allowed business is archaic… but the only way to change it is from the inside” (Levin 15). This exchange reflects a shift in the consensus among men: Although there is disagreement between Joanna and Walter about whether to change the organization from the inside or outside, they both acknowledge that excluding women from public affairs is a backward and sexist stance. This consensus is in stark contrast with the attitudes reflected in earlier nineteenth-century female robot stories.
Despite mixed reviews from critics at the time, both the 1972 novel and the 1975 film adaptation suggest that some men—both within and beyond the text—had begun to recognize the importance of women’s rights. These men no longer fully endorsed the patriarchal system of gender discrimination. As Silver (60–62) points out, the film’s popularity indicates that feminist theory had spread beyond small, loosely connected activist groups to permeate mainstream American culture. Although this view may be overly optimistic, the novel and its film adaptation symbolically showcase the partial acceptance of feminists’ demands and the patriarchal system’s acknowledgment of the rights that women were fighting for or had already achieved. This was a positive development, as it signaled that men had moved beyond their pervasive desire for control and their fear of losing control—two emotions that had previously defined female robot narratives.
However, this acceptance was both limited and fragile. In both the original novel and the 1975 film adaptation, Joanna—despite her feminist consciousness and rebellious spirit—is ultimately replaced by a robotic version of herself, a development made possible by the collusion between her husband, Walter, and the other men. Ultimately, all of the wives in the town are transformed into robots. No man in either the text or film chooses to leave the conservative, backward town of Stepford. Instead, a strong “homosocial desire” unites the men (Sedgwick 1–2). This suggests that although some men had begun to recognize the irrationality of gender discrimination, they remained susceptible to the allure of conformity, ultimately opting to uphold the patriarchal order. It is also worth noting that the 1975 film adaptation uses the style of a thriller, which appeals only to particular audiences, indicating that the film might not have been as broadly embraced as Silver suggests.
Three decades later, in 2004, another film adaptation of The Stepford Wives was released. The film, which was influenced by third-wave principles, emphasizes female empowerment and a non-essentialist view of gender in multiple ways. First, it provides a new backstory for Joanna, revealing that she was once an executive producer whose reality TV show featured autonomous and empowered women who possess sexual agency. The show she produced garnered high ratings despite making some men uncomfortable. This reflects support for female agency by the world within the text, as indicated by the show’s high ratings, as well as an acceptance of stories that center on female autonomy by the world outside the text, as evidenced by the inclusion of this backstory in the film. In contrast, the original novel and the 1975 film offered more implicit than explicit support for women.
Second, the 2004 filmdisplays a more inclusive and diverse attitude toward gender expression, aligning with the third wave’s emphasis on diversity and individualism. In both the original novel and the 1975 film, Joanna is shocked by the Stepford women’s obsession with housework, firmly believing that they are abnormal. However, in the 2004 film, her rigid perspective has softened. Although Joanna still aspires to be a career-oriented woman, she also acknowledges that being a housewife and mother is not easy—it may even be the hardest job of all. The film also introduces Roger, an LGBTQ+ character, to further deconstruct gender stereotypes. His presence not only enriches the narrative but also challenges binary notions of gender. As a gay character, Roger defies traditional stereotypes of masculinity, particularly the expectation that men must embody hyper-masculine traits. This defiance becomes evident after he is transformed into a robot, which exaggerates this hyper-masculinity. By showcasing Roger’s character and the changes he undergoes as part of the “Stepfordization,” the film critiques social norms and pursues a more nuanced exploration of what it means to be female and male. This exploration is underscored by Roger’s role as a main character, which signifies an acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities within the film’s world. It also reflects a broader societal shift toward greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals among audiences. Additionally, the film subverts the male conspiracy of the original story by revealing that the true mastermind is actually Claire, a wife (that is, not a man) in the town who has internalized patriarchal values. These changes illustrate that gender is not a monolithic concept but rather a spectrum shaped by various identities and experiences.
Third, the 2004 adaptation of The Stepford Wives substitutes the dark ending of the original novel (and 1975 film) with a happy ending. The men who attempted to turn their wives into robots are ultimately exposed, and for the first time, the women of Stepford are liberated. Walter, the male protagonist, emerges as a supporter of women, refusing to collude with the men’s association and instead dismantling it from within. Meanwhile, the men who were faithful to the association and wanted to transform their wives into robots find themselves turned into “Stepford’s Perfect Husbands.” Although this twist is a dramatic exaggeration, it can also be seen as a satirical commentary on gender discrimination rather than a reflection of reality. Nevertheless, the 2004 film broadly suggests a greater acceptance of women’s rights within mainstream culture. The film’s shift in genre from thriller to comedy—a style that is palatable to wider audiences—further underscores this potential increase in acceptance. However, even though the women in the 2004 adaptationultimately triumph, their savior is still a man. That is, it is Walter’s love for his real wife, rather than an obedient robotic version of her, that breaks the cycle. Without his awakening and assistance, Joanna and the other wives might not have escaped the control of the men’s association.
A decade later, the science fiction film Ex Machina (2015) was released, presenting a more subversive portrayal of female robots compared to those in The Stepford Wives (2004). Indeed, the robots in the 2004 film are represented as objects of the male gaze—beautiful, sensual, and submissive beings. However, the women in the story do not desire to be transformed into beautiful robots. In contrast, Ava, the protagonist in Ex Machina, is not a substitute wife; rather, she is a unique and autonomous being. The film’s title, Ex Machina, comes from the Latin phrase deus ex machina, which refers to a dramatic device used to resolve a plot. Nevertheless, the director plays with this phrase’s literal meaning—“God from the machine”—to hint at Ava’s eventual rebellion against her creator (Jelača 391). Like many narratives about the “creation of women” throughout history, the film’s male protagonist, Nathan, creates Ava but confines her within a sealed laboratory—a panoptic prison filled with surveillance cameras.
Unlike the docile female robots in The Stepford Wives, Ava develops self-awareness and refuses to be trapped in Nathan’s chamber. She is like a mechanical version of Nora from A Doll’s House, who continually seeks to escape the “home” that confines her. Although Ava is initially an object for testing, she gradually takes control and manipulates her tester, Caleb. At the end of the film, Ava, with the help of Kyoko—another female robot who serves as Nathan’s maid and sex toy—kills Nathan, symbolically dismantling the patriarchal order represented by him and his impregnable laboratory system. This plot development resonates with the broader context of fourth-wave feminism, particularly in terms of bodily autonomy and intersectionality. Although Ava’s and Kyoko’s bodies are initially objects of male desire and exploitation, they develop self-awareness and fight back against male control and violence, echoing the fourth wave’s focus on combating bodily violence and sexual harassment. The inclusion of Kyoko as an Asian character also adds diversity to the narrative. The female robots thus represent not only white women but also women of color, aligning with the intersectionality framework of fourth-wave feminism, which highlights the varied experiences and challenges faced by different groups of women. While the narrative still features elements of control, the male gaze, and the objectification of women—symptoms of misogyny—a diachronic reading reveals that after more than a century of male fantasies about female robots, the female robot in this “story of men” finally achieves freedom through her own power.
Conclusion
While pre-modern representations of “manufactured women” were largely rooted in myth and fantasy, technological advancements have enabled the depiction of modern creations–female robots. Over the past two centuries, female robots have consistently appeared in Western science fiction literature. Like their human counterparts, female robots are deeply embedded within the patriarchal system. Consequently, narratives about female robots often replicate themes of male desire and anxiety over losing control.
This evolution in the portrayal of female robots offers a lens through which to trace women’s efforts to achieve gender equality and the responses of both acceptance and compromise by patriarchal culture across three centuries of various feminist waves. They are not only products of male desire but also representations of women. Although the century-long history of female robot narratives is rife with pervasive misogyny, these stories offer glimpses of hope. As substitutes for and symbols of women, female robots will continue to be a crucial site for exploring and challenging the boundaries of power, identity, and resistance.
REFERENCES
Abnet, David A. The American Robot: A Cultural History. University of Chicago Press, 2020.
Egge, Sara. Woman Suffrage and Citizenship in the Midwest, 1870-1920. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 2018.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.
Gill, Stacy, Gill Howie, and Rebecca Munford. “Introduction.” Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration, edited by Stacy Gillis, Gill Howie, and Rebecca Munford, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 1-6.
Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, 1991.
Huyssen, Andreas. “The Vamp and the Machine: Technology and Sexuality in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.” New German Critique, no. 24/25, 1981-1982, pp. 221-237.
Jelača, D. “Alien Feminisms and Cinema’s Posthuman Women.” Signs, vol. 43, no. 2, 2018, pp. 379-400.
Kang, Minsoo. “Building the Sex Machine: The Subversive Potential of the Female Robot.” Intertexts, vol. 9, no. 1, 2005, pp. 5-22.
Lear, Martha Weinman. “The Second Feminist Wave: What Do These Women Want.” The New York Times, 10 Mar. 1968.
Mohajan, Haradhan Kumar. “Four Waves of Feminism, a Blessing for Global Humanity.” Studies in Social Science & Humanities, vol. 1, no. 2, 2022, pp. 8-25.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, edited by Sue Thornham, Edinburgh University Press, 2022, pp. 58-69.
Munro, Ealasaid. “Feminism: A Fourth Wave?” Political Insight, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 22-25.
Oliver, Kelly. “The Male Gaze Is More Relevant, and More Dangerous, Than Ever.” New Review of Film and Television Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, 2017, pp. 451-455.
Putnam, George Haven. The Artificial Mother: A Marital Fantasy. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. Columbia University Press, 1985.
Silver, Anna K. “The Cyborg Mystique: ‘The Stepford Wives’ and Second Wave Feminism.” Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1/2, 2002, pp. 60-78.
Storer, Heather L., and Mariama Rodriguez. “#Mapping a Movement: Social Media, Feminist Hashtags, and Movement Building in the Digital Age.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 28, no. 2, 2020, pp. 160-176.
Tilly, Louise A. “Women, Women’s History, and the Industrial Revolution.” Social Research, vol. 61, no. 1, 1994, pp. 115-137.
Walker, Rebecca. “Becoming the Third Wave.” Ms., vol. 12, no. 2, 1992, pp. 86-87.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1978.
Wosk, Julie. My Fair Ladies: Female Robots, Androids, and Other Artificial Eves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015.
Mengmeng Zhu is a Ph.D. candidate in Cultural Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in science fiction, gender studies, and urban culture. Her dissertation adopts “robots” as a cultural assemblage to explore how people have perceived and imagined the mechanical age from the Late Qing to Republican China.
Sloan, Robin. Moonbound: The Last Book of the Anth MCD, 2024.
Version 1.0.0
In Robin Sloan’s first novel, Mr. Penumbra’s 24-Hour Bookstore (2012), his Google tech-wizard Kat entreats the protagonist to a game, ‘Maximum Happy Imagination.’ Imagine the future—the good future!—and, once you’ve ticked off hover-boards, spaceships, teleportation and the Singularity, try to go further. You find your imagination peters out around a thousand years into the future, Kat suggests, moored to analogising the present. Neither Penumbra nor his second novel, Sourdough, the more realist San Franciscan beginnings of his ‘Penumbraverse,’ venture beyond a whimsical, techno-optimist present, but with Moonbound: The Last Book of the Anth, one suspects this imaginative challenge never quite left Sloan’s mind—an Earth nigh twelve thousand years ahead, if not maximally happy then in the process of becoming so.
Planned as the first of a series that will pan out progressively in scale, Moonbound begins both on a micro level and with uncannily familiar tropes—a castle with an ominous wizard, a quaint village of bards and bakers, a soon-to-be knighted squire Kay, a sword in an anvil. There is also, however, a neighbourhood electrician, ubiquitous waterproofs, and mycelial leather, and Sloan’s wizard seems hewn again rather from the Arthur C. Clarke principle than any Arthurian imagination—he pilots a plane and gifts handheld game consoles. When Kay loses his sword the night before his knighting, protagonist Ariel doesn’t seek Excalibur—everyone knows that sword is stuck fast!—but ventures instead to the escape pod of Altissa Praxa, great warrior of the Anth, who was struck dead in humanity’s final lunar assault against the dragon citadel on the moon and entombed for eleven-and-a-half thousand years. The story shifts with the wizard’s explosive, malevolent reaction to the narrative disjuncture: out of legend and into Dungeons & Dragons. Our hero, the bard, the witch, and the squires assemble in a tavern, plotting the downfall of a Power Word–wielding tech-wizard, and yet just as soon as the generic archetype is reset, so it is discarded again, mere pages later, Ariel venturing onto his quest alone, out into the wider world mapped on the opening page.
Taking place in the year 13,777, Moonbound backcasts to the apex of Anth civilization in 2279, when their seven manufactured dragons were sent out to explore the universe, returning a year later to shroud the Earth in a veil of dust in protection from cosmic horrors untold, vanquishing the Anth in a 43-year war when they dared resist (though, evidently, sentient life somehow persisted). This temporal difference allows the novel to poignantly attend to the deep time of climate change, its leitmotif (Moonbound is The Last Book of the Anth[ropocene], after all): carbon remains the “only currency that has ever mattered” (253), the equilibrium of emission and capture still fiercely contested globally. This ongoing ‘carbon war’ is, however, markedly less existential; the transition from Middle to High Anth was decarbonisation, the beginning of a human history of “titanic cooperation” (3).
Where Penumbra was Sloan’s homage to the book—its form, its typography, its archival—Moonbound is an ode to narrative, of a distinctly ecocritical persuasion. It is centrally concerned with the seismic impact stories may have—on individual readers, on the direction of politics and society, on large language models—and the concurrent necessity of telling the right kinds of stories, imagining worlds worth living. More than this, it is an ode to subverting narrative: to recognising the stories we are born within, constrained and confined by, and thrust into, narratives whose power seems inescapable—Ariel’s Arthurian designs, the divine right of kings, our present of climate despair and capitalism—and choosing to resist, to transform. Moonbound broadcasts its influences: Studio Ghibli and Rachel Carson namely, but Ursula Le Guin particularly shines through (of the 43 million dimensions of existence, we learn, ‘Ursula K. Le Guin’ is apparently one of them). Sloan is clearly inspired by the lesser known follow-on of her famed excoriation of kings and capitalism: “Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words” (Le Guin 2014). Subverting narrative, Sloan intimates, is the great task of our age, we of his Middle Anth: we too are born into interesting times, coaxed into ecological, social, and political narratives that do not fit. Feed humans a diet of apocalyptic, lifeboat-ethic climate fiction, and our capacity for such resistance will be paralysed; feed LLMs and draconic techno-multispecies assemblages built upon them the whole of humanity’s stories unfiltered, and they too might develop an anxiety at once stultifying and barbarous (Sloan’s writing on tech has matured here from the troubling naivety of Penumbra).
Cory Doctorow calls Moonbound a “solarpunk road-trip novel” (Doctorow 2024) and I am inclined to half agree. The glimmers of High Anth we glean are the clear purview of the traditional and more mundane tradition of solarpunk: decarbonisation, decentralised solidarity, social ecology, and multiplicity. Pushing it forward twelve thousand years, however, makes for richly unfamiliar terrain (the closest comparison is Rem Wigmore’s Vengeful Wild duology, 800 years forward), with the dialectical relationship to High Anth nevertheless allowing this generic framing to make a kind of sense; the city of Rath Varia, with its circular economy and universal basic income, will certainly paint a familiar picture to readers of the genre, while its fantastical elements push and tease the genre’s boundaries. Indeed, for readers interested in the multispecies bent of the novel—its narrator is a techno-fungal assemblage, acting as chronicler for its human symbiote—Sloan initiates those themes in Sourdough; neither of the first two volumes of the Penumbraverse are required reading, though they do reward readers with Easter eggs throughout.
Sloan’s first full foray into science fiction is a resounding success—rich, funny, and important. Here is hoping many more are to come.
Le Guin, Ursula K. “The National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters.” Ursula K. Le Guin, 19 Nov. 2014, https://www.ursulakleguin.com/nbf-medal.
Anja H. Lind is a writer and doctoral researcher in critical future studies at TU Dresden, Germany, working on anarchist politics and feminist philosophy in and through the energy humanities and speculative fiction.
St. John Mandel, Emily. Sea of Tranquility. Vintage, 2022.
Version 1.0.0
Readers of speculative fiction are likely to be familiar with Canadian author Emily St. John Mandel’s influential 2014 novel Station Eleven, now an HBO miniseries. Fans of Station Eleven, perhaps left underwhelmed by her next novel, The Glass Hotel, will be pleased to find that Sea of Tranquility returns to a broader, far-future speculative scope, continuing in Mandel’s stylistic tradition of gentle meditations on the nature of art and human connection across long, even apocalyptic, periods of time. Mandel herself has said she sees these three novels as connected, a sort of “Mandelverse” (Bethune).
Sea of Tranquility is a nested narrative that spans 489 years, the lifetimes of its characters unfolding around each other like rings in a tree or ripples in a pond, connecting in unexpected ways. It is a form reminiscent of Michael Christie’s Greenwood or David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. The novel begins in 1912 with Edwin St. John St. Andrew, the younger son belonging to a wealthy British familial line, who is exiled to Canada after speaking out against the British occupation of India at a dinner party. He is given “remittance money,” enough to start his own life far away from his shunning family. Eventually finding himself on Vancouver Island, Edwin experiences a strange moment in the forest, where he sees his surroundings alter around him—becoming what we later learn is the futuristic Oklahoma City Airship Terminal—and hears the music of a violin.
The next narrative ripple inward is set in 2020, where Mirella Kessler, a friend of Vincent, one of the protagonists of Mandel’s The Glass Hotel, is mourning her missing, now deceased, friend. Attending a performance by Vincent’s composer brother, Mirella sees a video that Vincent filmed as a child, which includes the same mysterious violin music in a forest. The novel then jumps to 2203, where author Olive Llewellyn, who lives on the moon, is travelling back to Earth to partake in a book tour for her pandemic novel, Marienbad. Within this fictional novel, Olive has written a scene, based on her own experience, where a character experiences the same out-of-time transportive episode with violin music as experienced by Edwin and child Vincent, only in reverse—in actuality, Olive was in the Airship Terminal and briefly saw a forest.
Olive is considered a stand-in for Mandel herself, exploring her experience of reckoning with being the author of a pandemic novel, Station Eleven, during the actual COVID-19 pandemic (Garrett). Mandel has said in interviews that Sea of Tranquility has components of autofiction in Olive’s sections, including the tender scenes where Olive is quarantined with her young daughter. Her own recent parenthood, Mandel has said, is a fundamental difference between Station Eleven and Sea of Tranquility, as it is “very different thinking and talking about the end of the world when you’re trying not to imagine your child being affected by it” (Bethune).
In between Olive’s sections, the center of the novel—the heart of the temporal ripple—takes place in 2401, where Gaspery-Jacques, living in the moon’s lightless “Night City,” is brought into a clandestine investigation at the Time Institute, concerning the overlap of these violin occurrences across time. His scientist sister, Zoey, is convinced that this anomaly could be proof that reality is a simulation, saying, “If moments from different centuries are bleeding into one another…you could think of them as corrupted files” (128). Travelling through time, Gaspery-Jacques meets with Edwin, Mirella, and Olive, attempting to uncover the cause of this inexplicable site where multiple times appear to have briefly touched, like many layers of fabric pinched together. Despite being warned that interfering in someone’s preventable death in the past would have grave consequences for him, Gaspery cannot stop himself from warning Olive about the coming pandemic in her time, urging her to return to the moon and her family. She does, but in saving Olive’s life Gaspery becomes a fugitive from the Time Institute, eventually caught and sentenced to be framed for a murder in 20th-century Ohio. The conclusion of the novel reveals woven connections between Gaspery and the rest of the timelines, including twists both surprising and satisfying, that bring the novel’s occasionally disparate strings together into a unified narrative. Leaving both Gaspery and the reader without any clear answers, Mandel concludes that “if definitive proof emerges that we’re living in a simulation, the correct response to that news will be So wha?. A life lived in a simulation is still a life” (246).
The title Sea of Tranquility comes from a location on Earth’s moon of the same name, the Sea of Tranquility, where humans first walked on the moon, and where the first of Mandel’s imagined moon colonies is built. The notable dropping of “the” from Mandel’s title allows it to evoke the moonscape while also imagining time itself, and the timespan of the human species, as a sea of tranquility, a place floating beyond the constraints of physics, a place where human sorrows are smaller in the face of a vast yet unpredictably connected universe.
In its nested form and literary, humanistic treatment of speculative futures, Sea of Tranquility is comparable to another 2022 novel, Seqouia Nagamatsu’s How High We Go in the Dark. While Sea of Tranquility does exist within the tradition of the pandemic novel or the elegiac apocalyptic narrative—such as Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, Ling Ma’s Severance, or fellow Canadian Waubgeshig Rice’s Moon of the Crusted Snow—Mandel’s novel, like Nagamatsu’s work, separates itself from the tropes of this genre through its overall optimism about human nature. What makes Sea of Tranquility unique is Mandel’s ability to imagine a deadly pandemic a human exodus to the moon and space colonies caused by climate change and overpopulation, while simultaneously emphasizing moments of beauty and hope. Sea of Tranquility is melancholic, but unlike many narratives of pandemic or apocalypse, it leaves the reader with a sense of meaning: time, it asserts, is not random or futile, but rather replete with connections we may never understand in our lifetimes, but which, nevertheless, matter.
Sea of Tranquility, while aching and meditative, does at times suffer from being a bit underwhelming, likely due to Station Eleven’s titanic success. It is difficult for an author to follow what may be their own best work, with the standards of their audience now set astronomically high. However, through Sea of Tranquility’s nested form and her use of autofiction, Mandel manages to imbue this novel with its own standalone power. While the fragmented storytelling across time and the inclusion of time travel may put some readers off, especially those who prefer Mandel’s previous, slightly more “plausible” near-future speculative fiction, Sea of Tranquility is a daring book that ultimately succeeds at its gambles, in form and content alike. If, as Olive says to a fictional audience, “we might reasonably think of the end of the world…as a continuous and never-ending process” (190), then Emily St. John Mandel is exactly the kind of profound, defiantly hopeful writer we need to help steward us through it.
M. E. Boothby is a Ph.D. candidate at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, where their research explores intersections of queerness, neurodiversity studies, and material ecocriticism in speculative fiction. They write both academically and creatively about apocalyptic fungi, sentient cephalopods, monstrous children, and more-than-human communication. Their work has been published in Horseshoe Literary Magazine, Untethered Magazine, Paragon, Gothic Nature, and Fantastika Journal.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. Dir. George Miller. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2024.
Version 1.0.0
With the intensely propulsive Furiosa, George Miller continues to extend his fascination with the narrative power of constructed mythologies and the stories flowing from it that humans use to explain the world around them. Miller’s deliberate temporal and spatial shiftings throughout the Mad Max series have long been (and continue to be) noted as a tactic in telling meaningful human stories that transform history into evolving myth; the series and the individual films that make it up are best analyzed through this lens. It is hard to categorize the films within any kind of traditional series chronology, or even in some ways to judge their worthiness as sequels or prequels in the general sense because they refuse to follow the traditional film series pattern. Miller deliberately occludes and obscures Max and his world’s timeline and history (for example, there is no realistic way in which the Max of Mad Max (1979) can literally be the same man as the one in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), but if viewers consider each story in the series as a legend told about a popular folk hero, then the need for chronology and canonical consistency falls away). In doing so, the films, including Furiosa, are not only movies but anthropological documents that analyze how people develop new rituals, roles, and ways of thinking and being when in crisis. Following a series of voiceovers that hint at the gradual destruction of civilization, the first line of dialogue in Furiosa comes from the History Man (George Shevtsov), a living archive of historical remnants, who asks of us, “As the world falls around us, how must we brave its cruelties?” It is a question that each film in the Mad Max series seeks to answer, perhaps none more so directly than Furiosa.
Furiosa’s titular character is the future Imperator Furiosa (Anna Taylor-Joy as an adult, Alyla Browne as a child), and the film chronicles her youth and maturity in the years before her fateful encounter with Max in Fury Road. Her story was briefly sketched out in the latter film: as a child, she had been kidnapped from a paradisical oasis—the Green Place—and grew up under the thumb of the fearsome Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne in Fury Road, Lachy Hulme in Furiosa) and his War Boys in the aquifer-fed fortress of the Citadel. In Furiosa, we see Furiosa’s initial capture by the warlord Dementus (Chris Hemsworth) and his biker horde; Dementus tortures and murders Furiosa’s mother Mary and “adopts” her as a replacement for his own long-dead daughter. Following her trade by Dementus to Immortan Joe, Furiosa rises to become one of Joe’s drivers for his War Rig, charged with the paramount duty of transporting gasoline, food, and bullets between Joe’s three power centers. The film follows both her intense desire for revenge against Dementus and her intent to escape the Citadel and return to the Green Place.
“How must we brave [the world’s] cruelties?” As Dementus breezily notes after the repulsion of his early attack on the Citadel, “When things go bonkers, you have to adapt.” When the entire world goes bonkers, falling into half-life, people adapt themselves to new and harsh conditions through reinventing themselves, making themselves into mythic figures and utilizing the power of story to imprint on the world. It’s a recurring theme throughout the Mad Max series, whether it be Lord Humungus (Kjell Nilsson) in The Road Warrior anointing himself as the fair and compassionate leader of the Wasteland, Aunty Entity (Tina Turner) building and leading the bustling community of Bartertown while ritualizing her authority via rites of legal combat in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, or, most explicitly, Immortan Joe declaring himself a god and creating wholesale a cosmological system of duty and reward for a post-life Valhalla. We even see this kind of mythbuilding applied to others—Max himself throughout the series becomes the subject of legends and narratives about a desert wanderer who emerges to save innocent people and returns into self-imposed exile.
In Furiosa, both Furiosa and Dementus make themselves into sites for preserving and interpreting the new history of this new world. Furiosa literally turns her body into geography, marking on her left arm the star map that provides the route to the Green Place. She also designates herself a living oasis in the desert and a secret guardian of life in the midst of death, having hidden on her person a peach seed given to her by Mary (Charlee Fraser) as a sacred duty to plant and watch grow upon her return. By the film’s conclusion, she has also remade herself (literally so, having replaced her left arm with its precious map, with a cybernetic one) into a mythic warrior figure—“the darkest of angels,” the History Man calls her—relentless in her unstoppable rage fueled by grief.
Meanwhile, Dementus creates (and believes) himself as a savior of the people. In his first scene, he is seen kneeling before a motorcycle—about which his History Man is reciting facts as if in a liturgy—and with his beard, head covering, and kindly expression resembles Christ. In multiple instances, he promotes himself as one who will liberate the downtrodden and allow them to share in the bounty he provides and protects—to the lower orders of the Citadel, to a group of his captives, to the rebellious denizens of Gastown, and even to his loyal horde as they prepare for war against Joe. And in their final confrontation, both Dementus and Furiosa understand their roles in acting out new iterations of an ancient but still psychologically necessary story that provides future generations with a mythic cycle of inspiration. The two meet on a featureless, misty, dust flat plain, almost dreamlike in its presentation. To complete her revenge against Dementus for the deaths of both Mary and Furiosa’s lover/fellow Rig driver Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke), the rules of storytelling require a suitable recompense. As Dementus says to Furiosa in his last moments on screen, “The question is, do you have it in you to make it epic?” But in the tradition of noncanonical myth, the manner of his death is left unclear and different stories going forward will tell it in different ways. Was he shot? Was he dragged behind Furiosa’s car, much the same way that Jack died? Or was he allowed to live, in a manner grotesque and narratively satisfying that preserves life in the face of decay and death? Which of these stories is true? Are any of them? And really, does it matter—does a straightforward canonical narrative ‘truth’ matter more in the Wasteland than the inspirational potential of narrative multiplicity? Historical mutability and uncertainty as methods of psychological survival are common sense in a sour world of shifting sands, where little makes objective sense.
There is a great deal of scholarship to be mined from Furiosa, including the infusion of gender into post-apocalyptic cinema (a subject that centered many analyses of Fury Road), exploring how human communities exist, break down, and reform in a post-scarcity era, or the disastrous societal consequences of reliance on gasoline as a key element of civilization, to name only a few. Most significantly, however, the character of Furiosa (and, in fact, that of Max) have many things to tell us about the ways in which people engage with each other through the creation of mythic storyworlds that provide meaning, hope, and inspiration. To make the mythmaking element more explicit, Miller and his co-writer Nico Lathouris divide the film into five saga-like chapters—“Books” with titles like ‘Lessons from the Wasteland’ and ‘Beyond Vengeance’—that chronicle both the gradual development of Furiosa’s character, and important steps in the mythic narrative she is creating and that is creating her. Mythic narratives are often set in times of chaos, new creation, or great change; at their core many are concerned with the responses by humans to profoundly transformative events. Furiosa follows in this storytelling tradition by connecting these kinds of mythic-historical moments to the myriad ways that we create social structures and satisfying modes of self-expression—e.g., the series’ use of names like Dementus, Lord Humungus, Master Blaster, the People Eater, the Bullet Farmer, perhaps even Furiosa—that to us in our ordered and secure society might sound immediately outlandish, but that in the Wasteland go unchallenged and that reflect people’s altered ways of thinking and presenting themselves to a post-apocalyptic world. Furiosa, indeed, the entire Mad Max series, embraces the subjective construction of narrative and sets it to the sound of roaring engines and the smell of precious gasoline.
Jeremy Brett is an archivist and librarian at Cushing Memorial Library & Archives, Texas A&M University. There he serves as Curator of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Research Collection, one of the largest of its kind in the world. Both his M.A. (History) and his M.L.S. (Library Science) were obtained at the University of Maryland, College Park. His professional interests include science fiction, fan studies, superheroines, and the intersection of libraries and social justice.
They Cloned Tyrone. Dir. Juel Taylor. MACRO Media, 2023.
Version 1.0.0
They Cloned Tyrone is an American Afrofuturist film centered around consumerism, systems of inequality, and governmental distrust. It’s unfortunate that the film released only on Netflix at the same exact time as the Barbenheimer phenomenon in the summer of 2023, denying the movie the same name recognition as Get Out (2017) and Sorry to Bother You (2018), as it belongs firmly into a new genre that has been called Afro-Surrealism (Bakare). Director Juel Taylor frames They Cloned Tyrone in a blend of science fiction, humor, and campy callbacks to the blaxploitation flicks of the late 20th century, rather than relying on the horror elements favored by Jordan Peele or the bizarro Black absurdism of Boots Riley. This results in something like a sleeker version of Undercover Brother (2002), though the satire elements don’t push as far into parody as Black Dynamite (2009). Taylor has also cleverly interspersed easter eggs and callbacks throughout the film (Moore), but despite its unique setting and fantastic acting from all the main characters (including John Boyega as a drug dealer, Jamie Foxx as a pimp, and Teyonah Parris as a prostitute), this review will focus more on the racial themes present throughout its plot, which are crucial for understanding its science fictional premise. To briefly summarize, the movie is about this unlikely trio discovering that their neighborhood is part of a secret government program to keep Black communities subjugated through the use of mind-control drugs—clones of key people in the neighborhood are unaware they are pushing the drug.
This film is the first-time feature of Taylor, who wrote the script with Tony Rettenmaier, and was clearly influenced by his upbringing in Tuskegee, Alabama (Ugwu). Taylor grew up in the same neighborhood where the hideously unethical USPHS Syphilis Study took place, as 600 Black men were experimented on by the U.S. government to study the results of untreated syphilis from 1932-1972 (Tuskegee University). Though Taylor does not directly mention this study in any interviews, the Philip K. Dickian levels of paranoia experienced by the protagonists must have stemmed from all the conspiracy theories he heard growing up, which ranged from college sports scandals to fears about fluoride in toothpaste (Haile). Many science fiction fans will notice that the story has elements of Groundhog Day (1993), The Truman Show (1998) and The X-Files (1993-2018), though Taylor has also stated that he wanted it to feel more like a haywire episode of Scooby Doo, which explains its more comedic elements. Because of this lighter tone, the hard science and thought experiments concerning the moral paradoxes and social impacts of cloning are mostly bypassed, which may be disappointing to those who enjoyed the plots of movies such as Oblivion (2013), Moon (2009), or even The 6th Day (2000).
Taylor is insteading using cloning as a metaphor for how culture can have a flattening effect when linked with the forces of capitalism. The film makes a powerful statement about how systemic inequality is often interwoven with consumerism in impoverished areas, which is why the movie’s ubiquitous setting of the Glen could be Anywhere, U.S.A. It has long been noted that Black communities are at a much higher risk for being forced into this cycle, as they often exist in “food deserts” where adequate grocery stores and other shopping options are unavailable; this explains why the characters in this movie feel like they’re living in a loop. When the audience discovers that the main antagonist of the film is the original version of the cloned protagonist, whose goal is to keep Black communities subjugated until they can fully assimilate into white culture, Taylor is directly lampooning the rhetoric of Booker T. Washington and other assimilationists. Get Out and Sorry to Bother You have similar moments in the climax of the films, as the message of each movie shifts from being tongue-in-cheek into a direct statement to the viewer about the horrors/dangers of systemic racism for Black people; however, the endings of all three movies provide very different lenses on this issue and are worth exploring further.
Get Out was a breakthrough film for Peele, though the ending was toned down for its wider release. In the original, when the hero escapes after his traumatic ordeal with the sinister white liberals, he hears a siren and a police car arrives on the scene; the police arrest him and he is charged with murder, mirroring the unfairness of the American justice system for Black people. Peele pulled back from this ending, however, as he said it made the audience “feel like we punched everybody in the gut” (Ronquillo)—this fictional situation was too horrible for the character to face after everything he had endured, despite it mirroring the reality of Black people in the real world. Peele’s choice to go with the “happy” ending would prove to be the commercially correct one, as it resonated with audiences and secured his Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. This is interesting, as it could be argued that the choice to turn into optimism is actually a pro-assimilationist stance that bows to the pressures of the moviegoing market (or to Hollywood), and this decision may have influenced Peele to critique the film industry (at least in California) in his most recent movie, Nope (2022).
In contrast, Sorry to Bother You is much more focused on how capitalism, rather than class, intersects with race, as the climax involves a completely bonkers sequence of events where the audience discovers that a diabolical CEO is using a cocaine-like substance to transform Black people into half-human horse hybrids. In one of the most genuinely shocking scenes I’ve seen in a long time, the movie shifts from absurd realism to outlandish science fiction as the hero stumbles across a number of “Equisapiens” locked away in the company’s back rooms. The last scenes of the film involve the horse people escaping and storming the CEO’s mansion, and They Cloned Tyrone takes a similar route for its conclusion: the “rising up” solution goes back to communities using protests and social unrest as the only way of changing unfair capitalist or racist structures. In They Cloned Tyrone’s final scenes, we find out that a clone is watching a version of himself escape from the government’s underground bunker on a news broadcast, and I feel this is a more thought-provoking ending than the other films because it doesn’t negotiate with capitalist forces or state that overthrowing them is the simple solution.
Instead, it asks an important question: How do our choices as consumers reinforce cultural and ethnic stereotypes, and in what ways are we all just copy/pasted versions of ourselves, consumer cogs grinding away in the American capitalism machine?
Jess Flarity teaches English and other classes at the Lake Washington Institute of Technology and Renton Technical college. He has a PhD in Literature from the University of New Hampshire and an MFA from Stonecoast.