The journal is always seeking peer reviewers; if you would like to be, or are willing to be, a peer reviewer for SFFTV, please add yourself to our reviewer database at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv.

The journal is also seeking reviewers of recent works of sf and sf-adjacent critical theory as well as recent SF visual media. We are welcome to pitches, but we also have the following books available for review:

• Robert Crossley, EPIC AMBITIONS IN MODERN TIMES: FROM PARADISE LOST TO THE NEW MILLENNIUM (Anthem Press)
• Riccardo Retez, THE REAL AFTERMATH: HOW COVID-19 CHANGED THE WAY SCIENCE FICTION IS CONCEIVED, READ, AND INTERPRETED
• Christopher Stewardson, GHIDORAH, THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER (Liverpool Press)
• Derek J. Thiess, AMERICAN FANTASTIC: MYTHS OF VIOLENCE AND REDEMPTION (UW Press)

Reviews typically run 1000-2000 words, or 2000-4000 words in our “review essay” format. Samples of both types of review are available upon request.

For our media in review section, we are now primarily interested in:

* reviewers who are calling attention to things that have gone overlooked in the larger entertainment-media-complex landscape, especially international film;

* reviewers with a specific aesthetic, political, or philosophical “take” on a text, as opposed to a more traditional review that recapitulates the plot at length and advises the potential viewer whether or not they ought to watch it.

This notion of a specific “take” is especially important for blockbuster franchise fare, like the MCU or Star Wars movies; in most cases we would only be interested in a review essay for such a film, discussing it within some larger critical context.

Due to a recent review backlog we have not been actively soliciting film reviewers; as a result, much recent SF media is still available for reviewing. If there is a film you are interested in reviewing, please contact gerry.canavan@marquette.edu and let him know the name of the film and what you think you’d like to say about it. Deadlines are quite flexible. We look forward to hearing from you!

SFFTV is edited by Gerry Canavan (Marquette University), Alison Sperling (Florida State University), and Ida Yoshinaga (George Institute of Technology). Preferred length for articles is approximately 7000-9000 words; all topics related to science fiction film, television, gaming, and other visual media will be considered. Typical response time is within three months. Check the journal website at Liverpool University Press for full guidelines for contributors; please direct any individualized queries to gerry.canavan@marquette.edu.

The journal is always seeking peer reviewers; if you would like to be, or are willing to be, a peer reviewer for SFFTV, please add yourself to our reviewer database at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv.

The journal is also seeking reviewers of recent works of sf and sf-adjacent critical theory as well as recent SF visual media. We are welcome to pitches, but we also have the following books available for review:

* Heather Alberro, Emrah Atasoy, Nora Castle, Rhiannon Firth, and Conrad Scott, UTOPIAN AND DYSTOPIAN EXPLORATIONS OF PANDEMICS AND ECOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN

* Eric Aranoff, CULTURE’S FUTURES: SCIENCE FICTION, FORM AND THE PROBLEM OF CULTURE (Palgrave Macmillan)

* Andrew deWaard, DERIVATIVE MEDIA: HOW WALL STREET DEVOURS CULTURE (University of California Press)

* Richard Feist, JESUITS IN SCIENCE FICTION: REASON AND REVELATION ON OTHER WORLDS (Saint Paul University)

* Miguel Sebastián-Martín, THINKING THROUGH HIGH-TECH HELL: A THEORY OF NEW MEDIA DYSTOPIA (Ralahine)

* Robert Tally, THE FICTION OF DREAD (Bloomsbury)

* Gary Westfahl (ed.), SOCIETIES IN SPACE: ESSAYS ON THE CIVILIZED FRONTIER IN FILM AND TELEVISION

* D. Harlan Wilson, STRANGELOVE COUNTRY (Stalking Horse Press)

Reviews typically run 1000-2000 words, or 2000-4000 words in our “review essay” format. Samples of both types of review are available upon request.

For our media in review section, we are now primarily interested in:

* reviewers who are calling attention to things that have gone overlooked in the larger entertainment-media-complex landscape, especially international film;

* reviewers with a specific aesthetic, political, or philosophical “take” on a text, as opposed to a more traditional review that recapitulates the plot at length and advises the potential viewer whether or not they ought to watch it.

This notion of a specific “take” is especially important for blockbuster franchise fare, like the MCU or Star Wars movies; in most cases we would only be interested in a review essay for such a film, discussing it within some larger critical context.

Due to a recent review backlog we have not been actively soliciting film reviewers; as a result, much recent SF media is still available for reviewing. If there is a film you are interested in reviewing, please contact gerry.canavan@marquette.edu and let him know the name of the film and what you think you’d like to say about it. Deadlines are quite flexible. We look forward to hearing from you!

SFFTV is edited by Gerry Canavan (Marquette University), Alison Sperling (Florida State University), and Ida Yoshinaga (George Institute of Technology). Preferred length for articles is approximately 7000-9000 words; all topics related to science fiction film, television, gaming, and other visual media will be considered. Typical response time is within three months. Check the journal website at Liverpool University Press for full guidelines for contributors; please direct any individualized queries to gerry.canavan@marquette.edu.

The journal is always seeking peer reviewers; if you would like to be, or are willing to be, a peer reviewer for SFFTV, please add yourself to our reviewer database at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv.

The journal is also seeking reviewers of recent works of sf and sf-adjacent critical theory as well as recent SF visual media. We are welcome to pitches, but we also have the following books available for review:

* Heather Alberro, Emrah Atasoy, Nora Castle, Rhiannon Firth, and Conrad Scott, UTOPIAN AND DYSTOPIAN EXPLORATIONS OF PANDEMICS AND ECOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN

* Greg Carter, I’D JUST AS SOON KISS A WOOKIE (University of Texas Press)

* Andrew deWaard, DERIVATIVE MEDIA: HOW WALL STREET DEVOURS CULTURE (University of California Press)

* John L. Hennessey, HISTORY AND SPECULATION FICTION (Palgrave MacMillan)

* Yeojin Kim and Shane Carreon, MONSTERS AND MONSTROSITY IN MEDIA (Vernon Press)

* Gary Westfahl (ed.), SOCIETIES IN SPACE: ESSAYS ON THE CIVILIZED FRONTIER IN FILM AND TELEVISION

* Robert Tally, THE FICTION OF DREAD (Bloomsbury)

* D. Harlan Wilson, STRANGELOVE COUNTRY (Stalking Horse Press)

Reviews typically run 1000-2000 words, or 2000-4000 words in our “review essay” format. Samples of both types of review are available upon request.

For our media in review section, we are now primarily interested in:

* reviewers who are calling attention to things that have gone overlooked in the larger entertainment-media-complex landscape, especially international film;

* reviewers with a specific aesthetic, political, or philosophical “take” on a text, as opposed to a more traditional review that recapitulates the plot at length and advises the potential viewer whether or not they ought to watch it.

This notion of a specific “take” is especially important for blockbuster franchise fare, like the MCU or Star Wars movies; in most cases we would only be interested in a review essay for such a film, discussing it within some larger critical context.

Due to a recent review backlog we have not been actively soliciting film reviewers; as a result, much recent SF media is still available for reviewing. If there is a film you are interested in reviewing, please contact gerry.canavan@marquette.edu and let him know the name of the film and what you think you’d like to say about it. Deadlines are quite flexible. We look forward to hearing from you!

EXTENDED DEADLINE—Abstracts due May 21, 2025

In this special issue of the journal, editors seek scholarly articles that contextualize and critique AppleTV+ and its production of science fiction television against the tumultuous Zeitgeist of post-2016.  

The unprecedented popularity of streaming platforms has transformed the playing field, as well as the rules, of the entertainment business. It is nevertheless rare for a streaming service to aggressively invest in one particular genre as AppleTV+ has done with science fiction. Some platforms with vast repertoires, like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, sample an array of genres and narrative modes – including science fiction, action, stand-up comedy, and reality shows – without privileging quality or diverging from mainstream tastes. While Netflix operates independently of older media conglomerates, Amazon and others like Max and Hulu harness their links with “legacy” media giants, like Metro-Goldwyn-Myer; HBO and Warner Bros.; and Disney, FX, and Fox Searchlight respectively.

New to the scene is AppleTV+, which launched in 2019 and has since offered an alternative model to content production. AppleTV+’s branding and production strategies consist in offering original titles that feature A-list actors and directors while displaying a preference for the high-quality, technically proficient content that cultural commentators often associate with prestige TV. More central to this special issue, however, is the company’s investment in science-fictional media. Series such as Dark Matter (2024), Constellation (2024), and Silo (2023) are only the company’s three latest entries into a growing collection of titles including For All Mankind (2019) and Severance (2022). While AppleTV+ is not the only streaming platform fueling the popularization of science fiction on screen, TV critics and cultural commentators alike seem to agree that AppleTV+ is television’s new “sci-fi Valhalla” (Speicher, “AppleTV+ Has Become”).

This special issue accordingly invites critics to explore Apple’s investments – financial and otherwise – in science fiction. A powerhouse of consumer technologies, Apple has long drawn inspiration from the imaginaries of science fiction, not least in its marketing campaigns, which include iconic Super Bowl commercials directed by Ridley Scott (“1984”) and Mark Coppos (“Hall”); iPhone advertisements by David Fincher (“Hallway”; “Break In”); and the now-controversial “Crush” ad by Gal Muggia and Vania Heymann. In each case, the genre’s technological imaginaries were central to Apple’s marketing of its cutting-edge products, and they have since helped the brand hone its distinctive futuristic look and minimalist style. 

AppleTV+’s singular emphasis on science fiction as its privileged genre of production could also reflect the company’s larger business strategies for product management and development. Under its current CEO, Tim Cook, Apple has maintained Steve Jobs’ hallmark emphases on streamlined production and paternalistic oversight. Not only does the company commit to practices of austerity and lean production models to limit the number both of original films and TV shows/episodes produced, it also reportedly supervises and “meddles” in content production, sometimes to the chagrin of seasoned producers and directors (Goldberg and Fienberg, “Ron Moore is Ready”; Szalay, “iPhone TV”). Cook’s avoidance of controversial subjects like religion, nudity, violence, China, or negative representations of technology – or of Apple, more specifically – similarly exemplifies his tight control of the brand’s image (Mayo, “Tim Cook Reportedly”; Smith, “Apple TV”; Rosen, “Rian Johnson”; Kent, “The Problem with Canceling Jon Stewart”). Under such circumstances, the high premium AppleTV+ has placed on science fiction, how the genre informs Apple’s public image, marketing strategies, and future enterprises elicits closer scrutiny from scholarly readers and researchers of the genre. 

Equally important for scholars to investigate is how Apple influences the public perception of science fiction as it cherry-picks the genre’s aesthetic and narrative tropes primarily to serve its corporate interests. The privilege such a giant of consumer technologies accords to science fiction indubitably raises the profile and visibility of this historically marginalized genre. This represents a chance for science fiction to publicize its radically different – and potentially subversive – imaginaries of what is possible, which endears the genre to its well-versed enthusiasts. In prioritizing corporate profit, however, Apple also exploits the genre’s futuristic style, aesthetic values, and cultural associations for branding purposes. Can the science fiction it sponsors effectively scrutinize, let alone dismantle, the deeper structures of inequality that the company also perpetuates beyond a fashionable lip service to pluralism, diversity, and globalism? How can we read Apple’s self-fashioning through science fiction in light of, say, its manufacturing partnerships with off-shore sweatshops like the Chinese Foxconn or its failure to provide its content writers a home with proper work conditions, job security, and equitable compensation (Albergotti, “Apple Accused”; Fuster, “#BadApple”)? Given Apple’s record of complicity in resource extraction, labor exploitation, and union-busting politics, this issue invites contributors not simply to affirm but to critique the Apple brand’s sci-fi output against the contentious political, economic, and socio-cultural dynamics of the contemporary. 

Such critique has increased urgency as Apple launched its streaming platform and focus on science fiction in a moment of social and political instability in the U.S. and around the globe. Our contemporary moment reflects what Lauren Berlant has dubbed “crisis ordinariness” (Cruel Optimism), which not only overwhelms our perceptive capacities but also defies the conventional limits of the real – the global rise of right-wing politics with a flagrant disregard for objectivity, facts, or truth; concomitant assaults on women’s reproductive rights and equal opportunity initiatives that helped promote racial justice; the rising number of havocs wreaked by climate-change-caused natural disasters; the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East; the mass migration of people fleeing wars, violence, famine, or political persecution; and the attacks against the LGBTQ+ community are only a few examples. Against this state of crisis ordinariness, how can we read Apple as an agent in the (re)production of convergent worlds of aesthetics, economics, and politics? What do Apple’s images of futurity and history do for viewers at a moment of impasse? What kinds of social and political imaginaries does Apple open up and/or disavow? And how can we read these imaginaries against the neoliberal capitalist logics they mediate? 

Some possible topics may include AppleTV+ in relation to:

• Generic developments/trends in science fiction (TV);
• Science fiction in the post-truth political moment;
• Streaming TV and Media (adaptation, mediation, and/or immediacy);
• Writing sci-fi in the age of globalization, corporate profit, and labor precarity;
• Shifts in social class, labor organization, and worker solidarity;
• The aesthetics of political economy (venture capital; “stealth wealth”);
• The cult and operational logic of disruption (& the rise of AI);
• The history/trajectory of the Apple brand, television, and marketing;
• The potential and limits of futurism and techno-solutionism;
• Nostalgia – (esp. in the context of the MAGA movement’s backlashes against women, minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and immigrants);
• Politics, economics, and social (re)production of science-fiction aesthetics;
• Representations of work/anti-work movements and politics;
• Crises — aesthetic, reproductive, climate, economic, care work, immigration, political, and leadership;
• Science fictional representations of futurity (Utopian & Dystopian).

**NOTE: We are particularly interested in essays that address, preferably within a science-fictional framework, AppleTV+’s less discussed series, including but not limited to Dr. Brain (2021), Invasion (2021), and The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey (2022), among others. We will also consider essays on AppleTV+’s original science fiction films, such as Finch (2021), Fingernails (2023), and Swan Song (2021). We have received many proposals for essays on Severance, so additional essays on this series alone will not be considered. We are also interested in essays that critically assess issues of class, disability, gender, and race.

Abstracts of no more than 500 words will be due by May 21, 2025. Acceptance notifications will be sent out by May 30, 2025 with complete drafts of 5,000-7,500 words due by November 28, 2025.

Please submit abstracts and questions to projectscifi.appletv@gmail.com.

Course Description: Frank Herbert’s innovative, hyper-influential, and devilishly fun novel Dune was published 60 years ago this year—and, with the recent Denis Villeneuve adaptations, the series may be at its all-time peak of popularity and cultural influence. This year’s Science Fiction/Fantasy course is devoted entirely to the series, with special focus on the first two books, Dune and Dune Messiah, and a closing unit focused on the fourth book in the series, God Emperor of Dune. Dune, alongside its sequels, remains a tentpole work in the history of science fiction, marking a major pivot point for the genre: in addition to being one of the first works of classic science fiction to truly take the environment, and environmental constraint, seriously, it is also a work that troubles the typical imperial and galactic-cosmopolitan leanings of writers like Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Gene Roddenberry by siding instead with the colonized subjects of the Galactic Empire. (It is noteworthy that the key word in the final half of Dune is “jihad”—and that the text is on the side of the jihadis.) In Dune Messiah (the basis for the upcoming Villeneuve movie, expected in 2026), this approach to revolutionary violence is then itself critiqued, leaving the main character despairing, and deconstructing the “chosen one” narrative common in genre fiction in ways that were decades ahead of its time.

We will supplement our study of Dune with key works of postcolonial theory, ecological critique, adaptation studies, franchise studies, religion and secularity studies, and artificial intelligence theory to better understand Dune not only in its context but in ours. Partially funded by a grant from the Wisconsin Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, we will also attend to how Dune speaks to the ways societies manage conflict, internally and externally, especially around resource management and cultural difference; among the many things Dune is about, it is centrally about the singular importance of oil to industrial capitalism, and about how the “resource curse” of oil has dominated global politics for a century, leading to conflicts we continue to try to untangle even as the oil age is, itself, slowly starting to come to its end. Dune is a gripping story, but it is also a powerful allegory, one that has helped critics and fans better understand the world situation since its first publication sixty years ago and remains intensely relevant (in good ways and bad!) today. Along the way, we will also study Dune’s many adaptations, from Lynch in 1984 to the Syfy Channel in 2000 to Villeneuve in the 2020s, as well as some of the many other works it has inspired, perhaps chief among them George Lucas’s Star Wars: Episode Four—A New Hope.

Note: No prior knowledge of Dune is required. The course is designed for a mix of first-time readers, frequent re-readers, fans of the films, and people who are returning to the books for the first time as adults after many years away.

Readings: Dune; Dune Messiah; God Emperor of Dune, and selected additional readings and screenings

Assignments: Final critical paper or creative project; weekly sandbox posts on D2L; enthusiastic and informed class participation

SFFTV is edited by Gerry Canavan (Marquette University), Alison Sperling (Florida State University), and Ida Yoshinaga (George Institute of Technology). Preferred length for articles is approximately 7000-9000 words; all topics related to science fiction film, television, gaming, other visual media will be considered. Typical response time is within three months. Check the journal website at Liverpool University Press for full guidelines for contributors; please direct any individualized queries to gerry.canavan@marquette.edu.

The journal is always seeking peer reviewers; if you would like to be, or are willing to be, a peer reviewer for SFFTV, please add yourself to our reviewer database at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv.

The journal is also seeking reviewers of recent works of sf and sf-adjacent critical theory as well as recent SF visual media. We are welcome to pitches, but we also have the following books available for review:

* Heather Alberro, Emrah Atasoy, Nora Castle, Rhiannon Firth, and Conrad Scott, UTOPIAN AND DYSTOPIAN EXPLORATIONS OF PANDEMICS AND ECOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN

* Mark Bould and Steven Shaviro (eds.), THIS IS NOT A SCIENCE FICTION TEXTBOOK

* Mark Bould, Andrew Butler, and Sherryl Vint (eds.), THE NEW ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO SCIENCE FICTION

* Julia Echeverría, EPIDEMIC CINEMA: THE RISE OF A GENRE 

* Joshua Gooch, CAPITALISM HATES YOU: MARXISM AND THE NEW HORROR FILM

* Yeojin Kim and Shane Carreon, MONSTERS AND MONSTROSITY IN MEDIA: REFLECTIONS ON VULNERABILITY

* Adam Kotsko, LATE STAR TREK

* Miguel Sebastian-Martin, THINKING THROUGH HIGH-TECH HELL: A THEORY OF NEW MEDIA DYSTOPIA

* Alan N. Shapiro, DECODING DIGITAL CULTURE WITH SCIENCE FICITON

* Mike Stack, DOCTOR WHO AND GAY MALE FANDOM: A QUEER(ED) TRANSMEDIA FRANCHISE

* Cenk Tan, Elçin Parçaoglu, and Nazan Yildiz Çiçekçi (eds.), SCIENCE FANTASY

* J.P. Telotte, SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE

* Erik Trump and Jake Parcell, THE ARCHITECTURE OF SURVIVAL: SETTING AND POLITICS IN APOCALYPSE FILMS 

Reviews typically run 1000-2000 words, or 2000-4000 words in our “review essay” format. Samples of both types of review are available upon request.

For our media in review section, we are now primarily interested in:

* reviewers who are calling attention to things that have gone overlooked in the larger entertainment-media-complex landscape, especially international film;

* reviewers with a specific aesthetic, political, or philosophical “take” on a text, as opposed to a more traditional review that recapitulates the plot at length and advises the potential viewer whether or not they ought to watch it.

This notion of a specific “take” is especially important for blockbuster franchise fare, like the MCU or Star Wars movies; in most cases we would only be interested in a review essay for such a film, discussing it within some larger critical context.

Due to a recent review backlog we have not been actively soliciting reviewers; as a result, much recent SF media is still available for reviewing. If there is a film you are interested in reviewing, please contact gerry.canavan@marquette.edu and let him know the name of the film and what you think you’d like to say about it. Deadlines are quite flexible. We look forward to hearing from you!

SFFTV is edited by Gerry Canavan (Marquette University), Alison Sperling (Florida State University), and Ida Yoshinaga (George Institute of Technology). Preferred length for articles is approximately 7000-9000 words; all topics related to science fiction film, television, gaming, and other visual media will be considered. Typical response time is within three months. Check the journal website at Liverpool University Press for full guidelines for contributors; please direct any individualized queries to gerry.canavan@marquette.edu.

The journal is always seeking peer reviewers; if you would like to be, or are willing to be, a peer reviewer for SFFTV, please add yourself to our reviewer database at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lup-sfftv.

The journal is also seeking reviewers of recent works of sf and sf-adjacent critical theory as well as recent SF visual media. We are welcome to pitches, but we also have the following books available for review:

* Camille S. Alexander, BLACK WITCHES AND QUEER GHOSTS: RACE, GENDER, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN TEEN SUPERNATURAL SERIES (Lexington Books)

* Mark Bould, Andrew M. Butler, and Sherryl Vint, THE NEW ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO SCIENCE FICTION (Routledge)

* Jordan S. Carroll, SPECULATIVE WHITENESS: SCIENCE FICTION AND THE ALT-RIGHT (Minnesota)

* Nora Castle and Giulia Champion, ANIMALS AND SCIENCE FICTION (Palgrave MacMillan)

* Julia Echeverría, EPIDEMIC CINEMA: THE RISE OF A GENRE (Routledge)

* John L. Hennessey, HISTORY AND SPECULATION FICTION (Palgrave MacMillan)

* Yeojin Kim and Shane Carreon, MONSTERS AND MONSTROSITY IN MEDIA (Vernon Press)

* Abigail Nussbaum, TRACK CHANGES (Briardene Books)

* Emily Strand and Amy H. Sturgis, STAR WARS: ESSAYS EXPLORING A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY) (Vernon Press)

* Robert Tally, THE FICTION OF DREAD (Bloomsbury)

* J.P. Telotte, SCIENCE FICTION THEATRE (Wayne State University Press)

* Erik Trump and Jake Parcell, THE ARCHITECTURE OF SURVIVAL: SETTING AND POLITICS IN APOCALYPSE FILMS (Lexington)

* Harry Warwick, DYSTOPIA AND DISPOSSESSION IN THE HOLLYWOOD SCIENCE-FICTION FILM 1979-2017: THE AESTHETICS OF ENCLOSURE (Liverpool UP)

Reviews typically run 1000-2000 words, or 2000-4000 words in our “review essay” format. Samples of both types of review are available upon request.

For our media in review section, we are now primarily interested in:

* reviewers who are calling attention to things that have gone overlooked in the larger entertainment-media-complex landscape, especially international film;

* reviewers with a specific aesthetic, political, or philosophical “take” on a text, as opposed to a more traditional review that recapitulates the plot at length and advises the potential viewer whether or not they ought to watch it.

This notion of a specific “take” is especially important for blockbuster franchise fare, like the MCU or Star Wars movies; in most cases we would only be interested in a review essay for such a film, discussing it within some larger critical context.

Due to a recent review backlog we have not been actively soliciting film reviewers; as a result, much recent SF media is still available for reviewing. If there is a film you are interested in reviewing, please contact gerry.canavan@marquette.edu and let him know the name of the film and what you think you’d like to say about it. Deadlines are quite flexible. We look forward to hearing from you!