Farah MendlesohnRecensioni

Absolutely brilliant.

This slender volume was first published in 2003, and so only contains papers on MacLeod's Fall Revolution Quartet and the trilogy Engines of Light. Although very erudite, it it not written in the sort of dense language normally associated either with Marxist theory or literary criticism, although fairly obviously, it contains both. It also has a piece by MacLeod on his friend Iain Banks (the introduction to a German edition of IMB's Consider Phlebas), and another of the papers contrasts political themes in Macleod's and Banks' work (though be aware that Banks was still alive at this point and so the comparison is incomplete).

There were matters of fact in one of the papers that I dispute - fairly straightforward ones, at that - but otherwise I found this book enlightening and indeed, it made me want to re-read MacLeod's Fall Revolution novels, even though I only read them within the last ten years.

Be aware that anyone reading this will not only gain insights into Ken MacLeod's first seven novels, but they will also be given something of a crash course in radical politics, mainly of the British Left, but also of libertarian thought as this is a secondary strand in MacLeod's writings. These themes have continued in his writing since the early 2000s, although never in an uncritical way. Perhaps one of the most interesting things about the novels of Ken MacLeod is that just when you think he has exhausted all the possibilities that radical Leftist politics has to offer, there will be a new book that at least touches upon, if not relies upon, another aspect of socialist thought or experience. This book will prepare readers for the depth of MacLeod's political engagement in all of his works, based on the analysis of the first seven novels.

A set of essays that vary in quality and subject matter. Some emphasize history of a genre or subdivision, others are more based on literary theory.

Like many boys of my generation, I was introduced to science fiction by a small number of authors, most prominently Robert A. Heinlein. Farah Mendlesohn, a scholar of speculative fiction, has reviewed Heinlein's works including those left unpublished at his death, and written a critical assessment in (mostly) plain language. Some of her conclusions may surprise you: she decides Heinlein is a feminist (outstanding in relation to most men of his generation) and (again in the context of his generation and formative years) a certain type of progressive all his life. This was a fascinating read and has helped me see Heinlein through a different lens. I'm still not going to reread "Farnham's Freehold" or one or two others of his books but she even explains his, to me, embarrassing female-male dialogues. An excellent book, which argues that the Sad Puppies are wrong about Heinlein.

Quite heavy reading. Extremely informative and well researched as is expected of a Cambridge Companion. However there is some confusion regarding Urban fantasy and paranormal romance.

A fascinating exploration of the themes in the works of Robert Heinlein, the way that they repeat, and the way that they change over time. Mendlesohn does a fabulous job of articulating the reasons that Heinlein is problematic, as well as highlighting the reasons that I loved many of Heinlein's work (except Job, which I remember as baffling and unreadable).

Reading this proved interesting after reading Gwyneth Jones’s Joanna Russ a couple of months ago. Chiefly because I have read many of the books written by both subjects. However, where Jones’s Joanna Russ persuaded me to reread Russ’s oeuvre, The Pleasant Profession of Robert A Heinlein does not do the same for Heinlein. But for a different reason. When I read Joanna Russ, I felt as though I’d missed important points in in Russ’s fiction. When I read The Pleasant Profession of Robert A Heinlein, Mendlesohn’s criticism opened up his books for me in interesting ways but didn’t substantially change what I remembered of them from my own readings. Admittedly, I read the books several decades ago, but Mendlesohn’s argument didn’t strike me as sufficient grounds to track down copies of the books and reread them (I binned most of my Heinlein paperbacks years ago). Don’t get me wrong, The Pleasant Profession of Robert A Heinlein is a fascinating read in its own right, and an informative study of Heinlein’s fiction. It is a worthy winner of the BSFA Award (even though one of the other nominees contains a critical essay on my Apollo Quartet…). I’m not entirely convinced by some elements of Mendlesohn’s analysis – for example, Mendlesohn fails to point out that Wyoming pretty much vanishes from the narrative of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress once she’s married (she becomes a hairdresser); I also thought the novel’s code-switching was cack-handed at best. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress I read a few years ago for the first time, so it’s relatively fresh for me. Other books, as mentioned above, I read back in the 1970s and 1980s, and I think the only one I’ve subsequently reread was Stranger in a Strange Land ten years ago. And now I’m starting to persuade myself perhaps I should try rereading them… Perhaps that’s the difference between The Pleasant Profession of Robert A Heinlein and Joanna Russ. The latter inspired me to read and reread Russ more urgently than the former did for Heinlein. Nevertheless, both critical works are definitely worth reading.

This is a book-length academic study of the works of Robert Heinlein. And at over 400 pages of content, it's quite a long book! I haven't actually read a ton of Heinlein (Double Star, Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and Friday are it), but I still enjoyed this. Mendlesohn situates Heinlein in his historical and literary context, especially when it comes to issues of race, gender, and sexuality, showing both where he was ahead of the curve and where he couldn't see beyond his own limitations. Her argument is there are some things he gets flack for, which is undeserved if you read it in the context of his time and his body of work, but there are other things for which he deserves castigation, especially Farnham's Freehold.

These parts of the book are worthy but honestly a little too thorough, though I understand why. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the chapters about Heinlein's technique and rhetoric, and about the themes of civic engagement, revolution, and personal responsibility in his work. By reading all of it, from the early shorts to the juveniles to the late-period novels, Mendlesohn is able to show how Heinlein saw society and the self and the relationship between them. It deepened my appreciation of the Heinlein I have read, and made me want to read more of it. (Upon finishing it, I promptly ordered a copy of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, though who knows when I will actually get around to reading it.)

As in her book Rhetorics of Fantasy, Mendlesohn is attentive to detail when she needs to be, but her real strength as a critic is identifying trends and explicating why they matter. She's also a lively and engaging writer. This is a model of good criticism in general, and good sf criticism in particular.

https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3366809.html

I was a huge fan of Heinlein's writing in my teenage years, but the last awful novels came out just around that time and somewhat tainted the memory of the pleasure I'd had a few years earlier. I have gone back to his work a couple of times in recent years, but bounced off it as often as not.

But here Farah Mendlesohn approaches Heinlein with a redemptive eye. It is an interesting comparison with Roberts' Wells book - it is shorter, because Heinlein didn't write as much despite living a bit longer; it is more consciously fannish; but it's a much deeper analysis of what Heinlein thought he was doing with his writing, grouped more thematically than by time line. Heinlein's politics, for good or ill, had much more influence on later science fiction than Wells'. Possibly Heinlein actually had more to say than Wells, even if Wells said more of it.

I learned a lot from this, including in particular what Heinlein thought he was doing with Farnham's Freehold and how it went so badly wrong.

“Heinlein was always adamant, at all times in his life, that he wanted to teach people to think. For all his grumbling about hippies and weak-minded liberals, Heinlein was not interested in followers: he wanted critical thinkers for his readers. And, of course like all authors, he had little patience with people [...] who wanted him to do their homework for them.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“By the end of the short-story period, all the key elements of Heinlein are in place: sentiment, family first, a clear idea of bravery and duty, women matter, slavery is wrong, and the traces of sexual radicalism evident in For Us, the Living [...].”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“But there are three clear divisions in terms of the rhetorical techniques Heinlein uses: the cinematic, the didactic, and the picaresque.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“For a society to use people effectively, Heinlein argues, that society has to be egalitarian, and one of the strengths of Heinlein was the degree to which he argued that on behalf of women.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“Heinlein’s hatred of sexual coercion is sharp: he was explicit about it in his own private notes and he extended this into his writing. It is hinted at in Podkayne of Mars first, where Podkayne is uneasy with the ‘fatherly pats’, and explicit in the contemporaneous The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where, as is well known, sexual autonomy lies entirely with the female and there are two clearly assaults”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“For Heinlein, allowing women to be sexual beings who enjoyed sex was fundamental to challenging the blue laws and a culture in which women pretended they did not.”
In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“My contention is that in those texts [To Sail Beyond the Sunset and I Will Fear No Evil] in which women have narrative and focalised agency, Heinlein made a conscious effort to think about what women were like, and how they thought about themselves. He tried to create for them a voice that was embodied and aware of being female in a male world. In [his work] he also tried to make an argument about the possibilities for shifting that sense of self.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“To Sail Beyond the Sunset, a curious, anti-feminist and yer feminist novel, brings into focus Heinlein’s idea of a perfectly integrated, right-ordered individual, and the person in the frame is a woman. It is in this story that we get most strongly the sense of Heinlein trying to write women from the inside and focus himself as a women. [...] I have come to believe that it is simply not the book that I read in 1987 at the age of nineteen; my current age and experiences have profoundly shifted my response. [...] There are a number of incidents that convince me
that To Sail Beyond the Sunset could be understood as Heinlein writing himself as a women [...].”
In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

As a lifelong fan of Heinlein, I do see the Competent Man character described in many of his writings. However, almost every Competent Man in a Heinlein novel sees themselves as incomplete and ignorant with a thirst for more knowledge and experience to fill their perceived character gaps. Every Competent Man has as a hero a more Competent Man. It is these two pieces of the Competent Man which gives him the will and desire to live through even the worst of circumstances.
I've read someone say that if you look at their skill sets they are bordering on John Galt levels of Absurd... thus often making their perceived deficiencies seem equally absurd if not disingenuous. Not so. Though a book hero might have more than the usual dosage of skills, it's meant to be an aspiration. ("All I know is that I know nothing" isn't about how much you know, but about continuing to learn. Some knowledge becomes useless [DOS commands, anyone?] so keep adding new knowledge to your brain.

"The Competent Man" may be out of reach for the sub-average intellect, but it's surprising how little you have to know about something to have a good grasp of its fundamentals (Example: How much training do you need to have about fishing to do it well enough to survive? A single book could impart such knowledge; that's what the Boy Scout Manual used to be.) Learning more after that is much easier than becoming a super-expert in some narrow field. I'd rather have a small team of generalists than a large team of specialists. Even those generalists will have individual strengths.
Still, in today's highly technical world, there is a blizzard of new stuff to know about a variety of topics; it's hard to know what to stay focused on. So learn about things that are most likely useful. Some of them will be more interesting than others. The one theme that seems common throughout all of Heinlein writing eras is the theme of individual responsibility: It’s in “Rocket Ship Galileo”, “Between Planets”,“The Green Hills of Earth,” “Have Space – Will Travel”, “Starship Troopers”, “Citizen of the Galaxy”, “Time Enough for Love”, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, “Double Star”, “Friday”, etc.

I'd say that Heinlein's protagonists are more grounded in reality and more likely to have flaws but they're definitely a little bit over-competent. They're a bit more along the lines of the Renaissance man or polymath model though.

What I took away from Heinlein during my first pass through his works (as a tween and early teen and now - I’ve re-read a few of his works recently: vide LINKS above) was the notion that it was OK to be smart and competent, and that if you worked hard and applied your brains and learning, you could succeed despite the idiots who tried to stop you. Also that women could be smart, stubborn, competent, and equal to men, and that such women were the best ones to hang out with. (In fairness, I got a lot of that from Mom too, with no Freudian nonsense intended.) This became an essential part of who I am (or at least, who I try to be), and for that, I'll always be grateful. On many levels, I've found his books aged well upon returning to them. Now, more than 40 years of "woke" later, I can see some of the creaky bits and flaws that younger me never noticed. But I can forgive him those flaws in most cases because the writing still flows beautifully, and I usually enjoy the characters and plots. Even when he lectures. I grew an awful lot intellectually by asking and answering the question of why some of his theses left me uncomfortable or unconvinced. The Heinlein of "Starship Troopers" would probably enjoy that attitude; the later Heinlein might well have sneered at me. His letters, his sort of autobiographies (“Expanded Universe”, “Grumbles from the Grave”, etc.) and the biographies (Patterson’s, although an hagiography still worth reading - volume 1 and volume 2) I've read suggest he was a perfect lamb if he liked you, but a nasty old bugger if he didn't. From my current perspective, I see the box he grew up in and laud him for at least recognizing the box and trying to look beyond it. That's also become a cherished part of who I am.

I’m with Mendlesohn on "Farnham's Freehold" (I execrated it even when I read it as a teen, and I've never been able to make it past the first pages even now 30 years later; the opposite happened with “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”; I loathed back then, and then a few decades I later I loved it).

Fascist? Let's try to keep our facts straight here. It's not fair to bring up “Sixth Column”. He only wrote it because it was John Campbell's idea and Campbell wasn’t a good enough writer to pull it off so he offered Heinlein a lot of money to do it instead. Even Heinlein said that it was way too racist for his tastes. Why are you guys being so hard on Heinlein when you glossed right over all the shady stuff Campbell got up to? For further research, I recommend reading his posthumous autobiography “Grumbles from the Grave” and now “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein”. Heinlein did his best to hose down Campbell's racism. It was enough to make it an interesting book about rebellion in a tech society. But Heinlein was not proud of it. I keep it in the "paid prose" section. “Starship Troopers” isn't fascist, illiberal yes, but fascist no. The core of the book is that political authority should be given to those who are willing to sacrifice and risk themselves to have it. Most specifically through federal (not necessarily military, and this point is made in the book) service. Anyone who thinks that Heinlein was supportive of fascism knows nothing about Heinlein or fascism. Some of the political ideas expressed in his work could be described as crackpot, but that's true of any literary utopia. Ever read "Erehwon?", "Walden Two?"

In his essays, Heinlein was a supporter of democracy and public control of government. His book "Take Back Your Government" sets forth a plan for political public service and for localized block voting as a means of stymieing oligarchistic, bureaucratic authoritarianism. Heinlein was not, strictly speaking, a Libertarian in the Ayn Rand/Von Meises/Harry Brown style. You would more accurately call him an Individualist.

I have always believed that ridiculous 'Fascist' label on Heinlein comes from idiots equating saying anything positive about military service with being a fascist. The system in “Starship Troopers” isn't authoritarian though, it’s diametrically opposed to Fascism, and explicitly does not have any of the constraints you're talking about wherein it singles out any group for not being able to vote. Rather it demands that those who expect something from society be willing to put something into it, which nothing like Fascism, wherein the society is considered paramount and individuals as completely irrelevant. Also check out "For Us the Living" which has a very socialist type society (when Heinlein was an American Socialist; yes, you read right).

Derogatory to women? Funny. Have you ever read “Delilah and the Space Rigger” and “The Menace from Earth”? Despite being a man, I liked Maureen Johnson better than his regular heroes. I also prefer Mannie over his other male protagonists. I really don't think people are being fair here. Like ignoring all the times in his stories where your so called "competent man" archetype got his bacon saved by an even more competent woman. Heinlein was one of the first writers in his genre to include strong, complex female characters with actual depth in central roles rather than just bystanders or satellites to a more "competent man". Read Chapter 5 of Mendlesohn’s book if you think was anti-women or some other related bullshit. I’m not saying he was perfect, but he was a lot better than most of the crap being written at the time regarding women (vide quotes above).

And while I'm at it; Heinlein didn't invent the "competent man" trope either. This stuff has been around for literally centuries. Heinlein wasn't perfect, but he was one of the first writers to actually push back against that trope, and thereby laid the groundwork for others to continue pushing back. So how about a little credit where credit is due, eh?

What I really like about Heinlein is that, even when I disagree with him I still find it interesting to read his opinions and come out of it with a different perspective or a few extra thoughts to chew on. He's never dull or simplistic. It is inexplicable that his legacy and character have come under attack lately, to the point where he has become one of the most misunderstood and maligned SF author in recent years, coming in a close second to Orson Scott Card. Sadly, the 'snowflake' generation has been conditioned to dismiss Heinlein as a 'fascist' based purely on criticism of “Starship Troopers”, most of which was derived from that ridiculous and quirky movie adaptation and NOT the actual text!

Heinlein never intended to present the militaristic democratic government depicted in the novel as a utopia, merely as a more effective form of government to the universal representative democracy in its current form (which has its own numerous & unique faults) and more importantly, one that is unique and relative to the setting of the book. Ultimately people lose sight of the overarching goal of the book which is analogous to the struggles fought during the Cold War; the conflict between Communism & Democratic Capitalism and the ideological struggle between collectivism and individualism. Critics and sci-fi fans also conveniently forget the time period when the book was written, during the aftermath of the Korean War which saw massive numbers of poorly equipped Communist solders confronting the numerically inferior but qualitatively superior Democratic forces of NATO, all done under the specter of possible nuclear annihilation.

So he made Mary Sue stories for nerds and boy scouts that wanted to feel empowered? Well, he knew his market if he got so many fans. At least he didn't exploit his fans like Ron L. Hubbard, and I hope he didn't share the beliefs of Orson Scott Card who I abhor.

I'm not sure when people decided that any militarily run society is fascist, especially given that Heinlein’s heyday was during the Eisenhower administration, most of the complaints I see directed at it are more from later period and post-Vietnam-war anti-military culture. Most people are idiotic, brainwashed sheep. Look at how degenerate society is today to see how far out we are from any sense of normalcy.

The cool thing about Heinlein has always been that even in his worst works, and believe me there are some real stinkers, he's still easy and enjoyable to read. The man just had a way with words that kept you interested even if the material was rubbish. And when that writing met material that was also good, you get Hugo and Nebula awards like “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”

R. I.P. R.A.H. Robert Heinlein is basically me; I am fascist, supporter of rights, and democratic dictatorships. You made me question my own beliefs with your body of work. Mendlesohn wrote a biography of sorts, but unlike Patterson’s volume 1 and Volume 2, she also gave us a balanced approach to Heinlein’s tropes: Feminism, Fascism, etc.

I can never fully grok.

I realized the other day that I have spent 46 years reading children's fantasy but have never thought about it in a critical or analytical way. I also wondered how much I had missed. This book is a good start on both those fronts. The number of fantasy titles mentioned is overwhelming, but I learned a lot and discovered that I have a lot of fantasy reading to do. I also appreciated their extensive list of additional scholarly sources.

This collection was informative about the history of science fiction. Like most collections the essays are unequal. I most enjoyed the Space Opera (chapter 14) and the life sciences chapter (chapter 12). Following is the chapter list. Great resource for learning and reviewing the historical progress if Science Fiction in the 20th Century. The collection was mostly European and American centric, which was appropriate for me, since matches my reading experiences.

1 Science fiction before the genre 15
brian stableford
2 The magazine era: 1926–1960 32
brian attebery
3 New Wave and backwash: 1960–1980 48
damien broderick
4 Science fiction from 1980 to the present 64
john clute
5 Film and television 79
mark bould
6 Science fiction and its editors 96
gary k. wolfe
7 Marxist theory and science fiction 113
istvan csicsery-ronay, jr
8 Feminist theory and science fiction 125
veronica hollinger
9 Postmodernism and science fiction 137
andrew m. butler
10 Science fiction and queer theory 149
wendy pearson
Part 3. Sub-genres and themes
11 The icons of science fiction 163
gwyneth jones
12 Science fiction and the life sciences 174
joan slonczewski and michael levy
13 Hard science fiction 186
kathryn cramer
14 Space opera 197
gary westfahl
15 Alternate history 209
andy duncan
16 Utopias and anti-utopias 219
edward james
17 Politics and science fiction 230
ken macleod
18 Gender in science fiction 241
helen merrick
19 Race and ethnicity in science fiction 253
elisabeth anne leonard
20 Religion and science fiction 264
farah mendlesohn

Most theories, of course, really don't mean much at all until you try to use them in practice, which is something I haven't yet had much of a chance to do with Rhetorics of Fantasy, but hope to do someday. I like her formulation of the four types of fantasy (portal-quest, immersive, intrusion, liminal), and what they indicate about our ("the reader's") attitude toward the fantastic, especially as regards observation (but then of course I would, as I am obsessed with observation). Mendelsohn has a keen attention to detail and complications (her point that genres work differently in different media, and thus we can't assume what she says is true for novels is also true for Buffy the Vampire Slayer is well taken), and I look forward to digging into her work in more depth at some point.

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2125825.html

an excellent set of essays on various aspects of the fantasy literature, with a very strong historical introduction (apart from a bizarre chapter on children's fantasy), a middle section on various literary approaches to the genre, and a concluding section on various subgenres or "clusters", with a much better chapter on children's fantasy. When I read books like this I want i) a better understanding of books I have already read and ii) suggestions of books I might read in the future which may appeal to me, and I was fully satisfied on both points. In particular I note that many chapters referenced Rosemary Jackson's Fantasy: The Literature of Subversion, which I must now look out for. (Other individuals with more than ten references in the index: King Arthur, Jorge Luis Borges, John Clute, Sigmund Freud, Neil Gaiman, Alan Garner, Elizabeth Hand, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Ursula K. Le Guin, C.S. Lewis, H.P. Lovecraft, George MacDonald, Farah Mendlesohn, China Miéville, Edgar Allan Poe, Philip Pullman, and way in the lead J.R.R. Tolkien.) Strongly recommended.

see http://www.sfsite.com/09b/rf280.htm

This collection of essays spans Pratchett's career from the 1971 publication of _The Carpet People_ to his the second Tiffany Aching book, _Hat Full of Sky_ in 2004. The various authors focus on themes, such as coming of age, the development of the geography of Discworld, and the treatment of the academic world; or on characters, such as Death and Sam Vines. Some of the essays are clearly aimed at an academic audience, others may be appreciated by any reader interested in in-depth discussion of the works. This work, is not, however, essential to a fan library.

http://ritasreviewsandruminations.blogspot.com/

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1844360.html

An excellent, thorough look at the works of the much-missed author, taking us through how Jones educates her readers subtly through her writing, which made me want to fill in the large gaps in my own reading of her works

Some of the material is more interesting and useful, particularly the interviews with MacLeod and the essays he has contributed to the volume. Some of the critical essays are insightful, but others are less accessible, get hung up on plot details that don't always match my recollections of the novel, or concentrate on aspects of MacLeod's writing that I was less interested in. The best of the critical writing concentrates on the politics.

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1398365.html

This book is precisely what it says on the tin, with a first chapter taking the genre to 1900, a second taking it to 1950, and then individual chapters for each subsequent decade, with two extra chapters for a) J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and b) Philip Pullman, J.K. Rowling and Terry Pratchett, the whole text weighing in at less than 220 pages (plus index and lists). It doesn't interrogate the nature of fantasy literature in depth (one of the authors has done that elsewhere) but does define the genre clearly and convincingly, and also looks at when and why particular sub-genres (cute animal fantasies, paranormal romance, Big Commercial Fantasy) have become popular at different times. The authors integrate children's literature and also genre films and television into the narrative; this is not just about fantasy for grownups. It would be rather a good (and inexpensive) gateway text for the reader of fantasy (and/or sf) who wanted to dip their toe into criticism.

I know I always say this, but when I read books like this I want i) a better understanding of books I have already read and ii) suggestions of books I might read in the future which may appeal to me, and I got plenty of both here; I also was provoked to start thinking (though not sufficiently to complete the thought) about the books which received popular and/or literary acclaim which I just didn't like (including Little, Big, Light, and The Sword of Shannara). Mostly I found myself nodding in agreement or realisation with just the occasional raised eyebrow - Diana Wynne Jones surely wrote more than four books in the 1970s (p.139)?

A quick and easy read. Tim raced through this right after we obtained a copy, found many interesting tidbits, and a has a new list of authors he wants to read. There are lots of lists in the appendices, which we'll be returning to again and again. All in all, a very useful summary of fantasy writing in the English-speaking world.

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1223512.html

In Rhetorics of Fantasy, Farah Mendlesohn identifies four different ways in which fantasy writers engage with their book (and their readers). First is the portal / quest fantasy, where the hero leaves his or her normality to enter a fantasy world on a heroic journey. Second, the immersive fantasy, which is entirely set within an imagined world. Third, the intrusive fantasy, where the abnormal intrudes into the characters' reality. And fourth, the liminal fantasy, where we are not certain which is which.

These are not absolutes; many books combine writing in more than one of these rhetorical modes (eg The Lord of the Rings begins as a quest and becomes immersive, and I would say even intrusive in the closing section in the Shire; Perdido Street Station is an immersive fantasy into which there is also an intrusion from elsewhere). But Mendlesohn is convincing on the basic point that these are four very different ways of writing the fantastic, which call on writers (and readers) to approach the texts in specific ways. Four long chapters give specific examples for each of the four rhetorical modes; a fifth looks at exceptions to them.

I'm not acquainted with literary theory, and my academic training is in the rather different fields of hard science and history (where the words 'polysemic' and 'phatic' are not often used), so when I read books like this I am not really looking to participate in the intellectual debate that the author may want to have. I am looking for i) a better understanding of books I have already read and ii) for suggestions of books I might read in the future which may appeal to me, and Rhetorics of Fantasy supplied me with plenty of material on both counts (and I'm brewing a livejournal poll based on my reading of it).

This is an academic book and may not be an easy read for non-academics, however I feel it was well worth the effort. Farah Mendlesohn's analysis of different modes of fantasy is insightful and illuminating.

Another one of those books that I've been reading forever and finally finished. I have to admit I expected more from it. Maybe it's just me being absolutely saturated with left-wing thinking on the subject of terrorism, but I didn't find that many of the stories truly thought-provoking. I feel things like the Channel 4 drama Britz dealt with the issues in a much more engaging way. The one story that does stand out for me (possibly because I read it in draft well before it was published) is Charlie Stross's "Minutes of the Labour Party Conference 2016" - that should be compulsory reading for the government.

http://nhw.livejournal.com/863289.html

It is too long since I have read the Fall Revolution Quartet, because most of these essays would have meant a lot more to me if I had had it nearer the top of the memory stack. Oh well, perhaps an incentive to reread them some time soon. I particularly enjoyed Adam Frisch's piece on the Engines of Light trilogy, the intriguing review of MacLeod's poetry by K.V. Bailey, and the pieces by Ken himself.