In Other Worlds
Dir gefällt dieses Produkt? Sag's weiter!
Verkauft von Dodax
At a time when the borders between genres are increasingly porous, she maps the fertile crosscurrents of speculative and science fiction, utopias, dystopias, slipstream, and fantasy, musing on the age-old human impulse to imagine new worlds. She shares the evolution of her personal fascination with SF, from her childhood invention of a race of flying superhero rabbits to her graduate study of its Victorian antecedents to the creation of her own acclaimed novels.
Studded with appreciations of such influential writers as Marge Piercy, Ursula K. LeGuin, Kazuo Ishiguro, H. Rider Haggard, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, and Jonathan Swift, In Other Worlds is as humorous and charming as it is insightful and provocative.
Atwood is a perceptive and enthusiastic literary critic, dryly funny and eclectically curious. The San Francisco Chronicle
Interesting, entertaining and thoughtful. . . . Atwood fans, sci-fi fans, indeed fiction fans, have reason to rejoice. In Other Worlds is a delightful read full of Atwood s well-honed prose and sly sense of humor. The Miami Herald
Margaret Atwood is a valiant champion [of science fiction]. . . . Her prose is addictive. . . . She crafts sentences with grace and pitch-perfect highbrow humor. The Plain Dealer
A smart and often playful book. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
In Other Worlds is an eminently readable and accessible clarification of [Atwood s] relationship with SF and the SF tradition. . . . The lectures are insightful and cogently argued with a neat comic turn of phrase. . . . [Atwood s] enthusiasm and level of intellectual engagement are second to none. Financial Times
It s a delight to see Atwood revisit Mischiefland, both because of the lovely details she remembers (the flying bunnies kept cats as pets and ate only ice cream), and because this retelling leads Atwood to speculate on the origins cultural, literary, mythic, religious of the science fiction genre. . . . In Other Worlds reminds us that all genres are capable of deepening and developing this one human story. The Boston Globe
Atwood gives us a bracing tour of the writers and books she admires (like Ursula Le Guin and She by H. Rider Haggard), her interest in ustopia (a mix of utopia and dystopia) in her fiction, as well as some autobiography. . . . Explains how the genre fits into a continuum dating to the world s oldest myths and continuing today with authors who use the genre to examine social ills, not run away from them. Los Angeles Times
Atwood certainly has read a fair bit of and thought deeply about science fiction, and she shares generously with her readers. The Christian Science Monitor
Fascinating. . . . Vibrant. . . . Compelling. . . . Not only is In Other Worlds powerfully readable and mentally refreshing, it s also one heck of a joyride through the limitless imagination of a national (and international) treasure. Bookreporter
I m a fifty-three-year-old writer who can remember being a ten-year-old writer and who expects some day to be an eighty-year-old writer.
In Other Worlds is not a catalogue of science fiction, a grand theory about it, or a literary history of it. It is not a treatise, it is not definitive, it is not exhaustive, it is not canonical. It is not the work of a practicing academic or an official guardian of a body of knowledge. Rather, it is an exploration of my own lifelong relationship to a literary form, or forms, or sub-forms, both as reader and as writer.
I say lifelong, for among the first things that I read and also wrote might well have the SF initials attached to them. Like a great many children before and since, I was an inventor of other worlds. Mine were rudimentary, as such worlds are when you re seven, but they were emphatically not of this earth, which seems to be one of the salient features of SF. I wasn t much interested in Dick and Jane as a child. They did not convince me. Saturn was more my speed, and other realms even more outlandish. Several-headed man-eating marine life seemed more likely, somehow, than Spot and Puff.
Our earliest loves, like revenants, have a way of coming back in other forms; or, to paraphrase Wordsworth, the child is mother to the woman. To date and as what I am pleased to think of as an adult I have written three full-length fictions that nobody would ever class as sociological realism: The Handmaid s Tale, Oryx and Crake, and The Year of the Flood. Are these books science fiction, I am often asked? Though sometimes I am not asked, but told: I am a silly nit or a snob or a genre traitor for dodging the term, because these books are as much science fiction as 1984 is, whatever I might say. But is 1984 as much science fiction as The Martian Chronicles, I might reply? I would answer not, and therein lies the distinction.
Much depends on your nomenclatural allegiances, or else on your system of literary taxonomy. Back in 2008 I was talking to a much younger person about science fiction. I d been asked by the magazine New Scientistto answer the question, Is science fiction going out of date? But then I realized that I couldn t make a stab at the answer because I didn t really grasp what the term science fiction meant any more. Is this term a corral with real fences that separate what is clearly science fiction from what is not, or is it merely a shelving aid, there to help workers in bookstores place the book in a semi-accurate or at least lucrative way? If you put skin-tight black or silver clothing on a book cover along with some jet-like flames and/or colourful planets, does that make the work science fiction ? What about dragons and manticores, or backgrounds that contain volcanoes or atomic clouds, or plants with tentacles, or landscapes reminiscent of Hieronymus Bosch? Does there have to be any actual science in such a book, or is the skin-tight clothing enough? These seemed to me to be open questions.
This much younger person let s call him Randy, which was in fact his name did not have a hard and fast definition of science fiction, but he knew it when he saw it, kind of. As I told New Scientist, For Randy and I think he s representative sci-fi doe