Science Fiction by Mark Bould (review)

Mark Bould's Science Fiction marks the eleventh of Routledge's Film Guidebooks Series, the entries to which, according to the editors, 'offer a clear introduction to and overview of the work of key filmmakers, movements, or genres' (ii). Since the publication of the first instalment on Bollywood in 2004, topics covered include crime, fantasy, westerns, documentary, romantic comedy, film noir and horror alongside studies on James Cameron and Jane Campion. Like many series of this nature (such as Wallflower Press's cultographies), each guidebook follows a similar rubric: critics provide a short history of the subject in question, a definition of major terms associated with the subject and a commentary on films, arbitrating 'pivotal scenes [and] focusing on narrative structure, camera work, and production quality' (ii). An important contribution to sf scholarship, Science Fiction is an impressive, spirited, thoughtful and theoretical study that supplies readers with an overview of the genre while examining the role of prominent leitmotifs in many, many texts.

There have been several efforts to analyse the corpus of sf cinema, most recently Vivian Sobchack's Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film (1987), J.P. Tellote's Science Fiction Film (2001), Greg Rickman's The Science Fiction Film Reader (2004), Sean Redmond's Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader (2005), Stephen M. Sanders The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film (2009) and Keith M. Johnston's Science Fiction Film (2011). Considering how many sf films were made in the latter half of the twentieth century, let alone their ubiquity on screens of both Western and Eastern cultures in the early twenty-first century, none of these books can be considered comprehensive, whether they aspire to be or not. At a slim 239 pages (including notes, bibliography and index), Bould's book is no exception, and he calls attention to this, foregrounding the problem of genre (de)limitations in his introduction. 'Genres are discursive phenomena, constantly defined and redefined by a host of different voices, with different degrees of influence, for many different reasons, but genres are frequently regarded as clearly defined objects, as boxes into which individual texts can be smoothly slotted' (2). Bould underscores our emphatic need to play the 'planner-deity', obsessively quantifying and compartmentalising our cultural productions (1). By way of this logic, he deploys his central thesis:

This book does not define or delineate science fiction. Indeed, it rejects the 'god-trick' involved in claiming an objective position from which to impose order, offering instead a 'situated knowledge' that is conscious of at least some of its partialities and limitations.... While engaging with the Film Studies sf canon, it embraces more than a century's worth of sf production worldwide. It refers to films from more than 40 countries, from 1895-2011, including shorts, animations, blockbusters and B-movies, and independent, art-house, avant-garde, cult, trash, sexploitation and pornographic sf films.

(2)

This angle of incidence, as Bould admits, is encyclopaedic and at risk of falling into the clutches of the planner-deity. He compensates by avoiding generalisations and definitions in favour of viewing sf from a decidedly postmodern station - as a fluid 'shape-shifting Thing' with no fixed identity (2). Also, as he states in his conclusion, he hopes that his book will serve as a starting point for more scholarship. 'There is no totalising, rationalised model of sf to be attained or imposed; but there remain countless intertwined, unrecognised poems below the threshold of visibility to be sought out and relished, and guidebooks to be composed' (195). Despite Bould's movement against encyclopaedic scope, however, one thing is clear: his knowledge and command of the sf genre is as deep and sprawling as that of the best critics in the field.

Unlike most other authors on the subject, Bould effectively invokes literary and cultural theory to provide context for his discussions (Descartes, Kant, Foucault, Latour, Derrida, Lacan, Žižek and others). He demonstrates a breadth of awareness, and while at times his use of theoretical...