"It’s not what Nature has done for us, it is what we have done for her”: A literary framework for reading the impact of utopian climate visions

Seminar by PhD student Astrid Roesen Abildgaard, University of Copenhagen.

While contemporary climate fiction often defaults to apocalyptic scenarios, nineteenth-century fiction offers an alternative tradition of environmental storytelling built on possibility rather than peril. This chapter compares reader-response studies of readers of nineteenth-century utopian fiction and contemporary climate fiction to suggest a framework for understanding the impact of reading optimistic visions of human-nature relations in the Anthropocene.

By combining insights from these studies and drawing on theory on the function of the utopian genre, I work towards establishing a framework for examining how optimistic (or utopian) climate fiction sidesteps the paralysis of eco-anxiety and engages readers in efficacious action. To demonstrate the possible environmental impact of utopian stories, I apply my framework in close readings of two early utopian science fictions by female American writers: Mary E. Bradley Lane’s Mizora (1880) and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland (1915).

The chapter contributes to the collection with a deepening of our understanding of environmental narratives across time by grounding the cli-fi tradition in early utopian and science fiction. Furthermore, the suggested framework promotes and furthers investigation into the impact of reading positive climate fictions, transposing the claim for significance of the concept of hope from utopian studies to an environmental humanities context.

Keywords: empirical ecocriticism, reader response, utopia, good Anthropocene