Suchergebnisse

Kim Stanley Robinson is a declared eco-socialist and arguably the most distinguished acolyte of Fredric Jameson, America's leading Marxist literary critic. Robinson's Mars trilogy develops a detailed account of three political revolutions. Robinson explains that this was a deliberate choice on his part, because he felt that in his first utopian novel, Pacific Edge, he "dodged the necessity of revolution." He describes Antarctica and The Years of Rice and Salt as his next utopian novels, but these, too, dodge the "necessity of revolution," the first by substituting science for politics, the second by projecting an alternative history into an alternative future. In the Science in the Capital trilogy, politics becomes paramount, and it continues to be so in his more recent fiction. This article will explore how Robinson negotiates the transition to utopia in his later work, from Forty Signs of Rain through to New York 2140 and Red Moon.

Raymond Williams had an enduring interest in science fiction, an interest attested to: first, by two articles specifically addressed to the genre, both of which were eventually published in the journal Science Fiction Studies; second, by a wide range of reference in more familiar texts, such as Culture and Society, The Long Revolution, George Orwell and The Country and the City; and third, by his two 'future novels', The Volunteers and The Fight for Manod, the first clearly science-fictional in character, the latter less so. This article will summarise this work, and will also explore how some of Williams's more general key theoretical concepts – especially structure of feeling and selective tradition – can be applied to the genre. Finally, it will argue that the 'sociological' turn, by which Williams sought to substitute description and explanation for judgement and canonisation as the central purposes of analysis, represents a more productive approach to science fiction studies than the kind of prescriptive criticism deployed by other avowedly 'neo-Marxist' works, such as Darko Suvin's Metamorphoses of Science Fiction and Fredric Jameson's Archaeologies of the Future.

ABSTRACT
The leading Scottish author Iain M. Banks was to have been the opening speaker at the conference of the European Utopian Studies Society held at New Lanark on July 1–4, 2013. His diagnosis with imminently terminal cancer made that sadly impossible. Below we publish the text of the eulogy delivered in his stead by Andrew Milner, professor of English and comparative literature at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

The article begins with a sociologically triumphalist critique of philosophical aesthetics, grounded in the work of Ernest Gellner and Emile Durkheim. It proceeds to note the practical failure of this kind of sociology to become institutionalized within the wider discipline. It explores a number of possible explanations for this failure, but finally suggests that a normalized sociology of art requires a normalized conception of art itself, such as that tentatively advanced by Pierre Bourdieu and Franco Moretti. The article also has an autobiographical subtext.

AbstractThis paper begins with the proposition that Fredric Jameson's Archaeologies of the Future (2005) is the most important theoretical contribution to utopian and science-fiction studies since Darko Suvin's Metamorphoses of Science Fiction (1979). It argues that Jameson's derivation of 'anti-anti-Utopianism' from Sartrean anti-anti-communism will provide 'the party of Utopia' with as good a slogan as it is likely to find in the foreseeable future. It takes issue with Jameson over two key issues: his overwhelming concentration on American science-fiction, which seems strangely parochial in such a distinguished comparativist; and his understanding of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four as an 'anti-Utopia' rather than a dystopia. The paper argues that, for Nineteen Eighty-Four, as for any other science-fiction novel, the key question is that identified by Jameson: not 'did it get the future right?', but rather 'did it sufficiently shock its own present as to force a meditation on the impossible?'. It concludes that Jameson fails to understand how this process works for dystopia as well as utopia, for barbarism as well as socialism.