Atmosphere by Taylor Jenkins Reid: An imperfect addition to the lesbians-in-space genre
Author
:
Taylor Jenkins Reid
ISBN-13
:
978-1529152975
Publisher
:
Hutchinson Heinemann
Guideline Price
:
£20
It's been a good year for lesbians in space. First, the Australian animated film Lesbian Space Princess made its world premiere at the 2025 Berlinale. Now, Taylor Jenkins Reid's ninth
novel
depicts a – literally – cosmic disaster steered by lesbian astronauts.
Set in the early 1980s, Atmosphere follows Joan Goodwin and Vanessa Ford, two fictional women joining
Nasa
not long after the first American woman on the moon, Sally Ride. As Joan fulfils her dream of training at Houston's Johnson Space Centre, a wave of gay realisation hits her hard and fast.
Just as her early infatuation begins to raise questions about how to live with a same-sex partner in a viciously homophobic world – 'You do realise bringing a woman as your date will make you look like a … you know …" – a 1984 mission threatens to take an apocalyptic turn.
There's much talk these days about the screenplayification of novels, the claim that writers are replacing interiority with action and dialogue in a bid to get lucratively optioned. Less discussed is the increasingly default presence of cinematically non-linear narratives. What was once an experiment has become the done thing: 1. opening teaser as close to the end as possible, 2. cut to much earlier in the story, 3. interweave the pursuit of both threads until they join definitively at the end. Atmosphere follows this formula.
READ MORE
I doubt it would bother the author to have this pointed out. In her recent cover interview with Time, Jenkins Reid shot back at critics who assumed she'd ever been trying to write literary fiction: '[M]aybe I love being Candy Land [Jonathan] Franzen.'
The novel's feminism operates at a similar emotional temperature: friendly, with a tendency to flatter the 21st-century reader's existing sensibilities
She's not a stylist, and that's fine. Franzen can write Franzen's books. Jenkins Reid's job is to write her own. Her sentences convey character, setting and plot without drawing attention to themselves. Unhindered by the road bump of experimental prose, a casual reader might breeze past the insight often packed into short strings of words. But dialogue like this will seep into you if you let it: 'Have you ever been in love?' 'No, I don't think so.' 'Well, it's like a bad cold: it's miserable and then, one day, it's gone.'
The humour is gentle rather than uproarious. Only once did I laugh aloud: '… Hank was the recipient of a very large trust fund. It was a fact that Hank wore with complexity." But there are moments that will elicit a soft smile, as when none of Joan's male colleagues make Nasa's final selection: 'No men from our group, huh?' 'No […] I am afraid they were not up to snuff."
[
Taylor Jenkins Reid: 'Marriages are messy. Our lives are messy. Convenient truths don't exist'
Opens in new window
]
The novel's feminism operates at a similar emotional temperature: friendly, with a tendency to flatter the 21st-century reader's existing sensibilities, rather than to prompt any startling self-interrogation. 'Don't thank me for doing the bare minimum,' a male astronaut tells Joan. 'It does a disservice to us both.' I don't disagree. Does anyone reading this?
One could reasonably rejoin that Jenkins Reid had never been trying to prompt any ideological awakening. The greater issue is how present-day online the phrase is. 'The bare minimum' has been kicking around the English language for ages, of course, but its application to men being called feminist pioneers for acts of ordinary decency is distractingly contemporary. 'Thank you for your excellent notes on how I can be scared in a less vulnerable way,' Joan says. 'Did she fumble?' she wonders. She's several decades too early for 'vulnerable' to readily signify performatively confessional femininity, and back in the innocent 1980s the verb 'to fumble' still needed an object. The scattering of these moments is too uneven for it to read as an intentional gesture to modern readers.
When the language does embody the context, it's thrilling. Here's a liaison with ground control: 'We are go.' 'Guidance?' 'Go.' 'FIDO?', and on for another 20 lines. I had only the vaguest clue what was happening and I loved it; the texture and energy mattered more than the exact meaning.
[
Daisy Jones & the Six: Everyone looks perpetually glamorous, but it's a soulless jingle
Opens in new window
]
I imagine it will divide gay readers that the HIV epidemic is mentioned only once. 'At that very moment, people all over the country were convinced that Aids was a punishment for moral failing,' muses the narrator in autumn 1983. Two paragraphs later, Joan has returned to wishing she could get married. There is little sense of a broader queer community for the astronauts. Their romance takes place in an intergalactic vacuum – or a near-vacuum, to deploy the scientific precision that Joan would want – while gay people at home die en masse.
Some will hate this. Others will respond that we already have enough books on the trauma of those years. Even readers who find the intimacy myopic will, I think, be moved by it at the same time: 'Joan had had no idea how quickly you could learn another's body. How swiftly their legs become your legs, their arms your arms.'
May the lesbian space genre continue to boom. This book is an imperfect addition, but one that floats.
Naoise Dolan's latest novel is The Happy Couple
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Could bouncing the sun's heat back into space help solve the climate crisis?
As global temperatures climb and extreme weather events become more frequent, scientists are exploring the use of solar geoengineering, a set of different measures all geared towards reflecting sunlight and cooling the Earth. 'The world is making progress on emissions,' says solar geoengineering researcher Dr Pete Irvine of the University of Chicago, 'but even if every country meets its current pledges, we are still tracking towards more than 2.5 degrees of warming by century's end.' That level of warming could lead to severe impacts such as loss of biodiversity , health crises and unchecked polar melting, adds Irvine, who the cofounder of SRM360, a nonprofit hub investigating ways to reflect the heat of the sun. There are other strong voices in the scientific community that argue solar geoengineering measures could – if successful – simply relieve the urgent pressure to implement necessary deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. READ MORE Irvine argues that emissions cuts need to happen come what may, and that solar geoengineering should not be seen as a substitute for emissions cuts or carbon removal schemes but as an added measure to help cool the planet. Eliminating emissions will stop climate change from worsening, but to actually bring temperatures back down to a safer, more stable level will need removal of hundreds of billions of CO2 already in the atmosphere, says Irvine. 'Solar geoengineering could help us manage risks along the way.' Scientific techniques that seek to reflect the sun's energy back into space, and thus cool Earth, are all referred to as solar geoengineering, or as sunlight reflection methods (SRM). There are two leading strategies aiming to do this. There is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which involves releasing fine, reflective particles, such as sulphur compounds, into the upper atmosphere. Scientists say it could reduce global temperatures by 1 degree if deployed widely. The other option is marine cloud brightening (MCB). The goal here is to make low-lying clouds more reflective of sunlight. This is achieved by injecting tiny particles of sea salt into the clouds – making them brighter, and increasing their ability to reflect sunlight away from the Earth and back into space. Irvine says that although SRMs are beneficial, none of them alone can fully address the root cause of the warming problem: the build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. 'They can't stop acidification of oceans or repair ecosystems already damaged by climate pressure.' Their implementation can carry a risk of harmful side effects. Measures to introduce SAI, for instance, could result in increases, albeit mild, in acid rain, and potential delays in healing of the ozone layer. And there is even a risk of a 'termination shock', Irvine adds, which is a risk of a rapid spike in temperature if SRMs were started and then abruptly halted. The global politics involved could be tricky, too, he says, if countries become suspicious of each other's actions or motives. 'Imagine a powerful country deploying SRM unilaterally. Even if their intention was to benefit everyone, perception matters. What happens if droughts or storms are blamed, rightly or wrongly, on their actions? The risk of conflict, or global mistrust, is real.' Using ground limestone and crushed concrete to capture CO2 and provide benefits to agriculture by adjusting soil pH levels. Photograph: Declan Colfer The big solar geoengineering efforts are happening outside Ireland, but there are interesting technologies and proposals being explored here. Prof Frank McDermott, a geochemist at UCD, has spent many years investigating how rocks absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. In particular, his research focuses on carbonic acid – formed when CO2 dissolves in rainwater – and its interaction with common rocks in Ireland such as limestone and basalt. Human activity has accelerated CO2 emissions, says McDermott, but the Earth's ability to draw it down via rock weathering hasn't kept up. A proposed fix he is looking at involves grinding certain rocks into powder, spreading them on farmland or coastlines and enabling the rocks to absorb atmospheric carbon faster than they otherwise would. 'It increases the reactive surface area – more contact, more drawdown,' he says. This approach, which is called 'enhanced weathering' has been trialled at sites in Co Wexford by McDermott working with Silicate, an Irish start-up team that has successfully used ground limestone and crushed concrete to capture CO2 and provide benefits to agriculture by adjusting soil pH levels. The work has potential for use in Ireland but challenges remain, most notably the wide presence of nitric acid created during the manufacture of nitrogen fertilisers, which interferes with the natural absorption of CO2 by rocks. Ireland's temperate climate is also a factor, as this may limit weathering rate, and be a particular issue for naturally slower-reacting rocks such as basalt. Then, scaling up enhanced weathering would also require careful sourcing of limestone raw material and consideration of impacts on the land, adds McDermott. 'There's promise, but questions of governance, land use efficiency and environmental impact remain,' he says. 'We need more data, especially if Ireland wants to explore this method seriously as part of its climate action plan.' There's hesitancy in permitting CO2 injection here. We need a framework for long-term storage. Other countries are already doing this. Why not us? Don MacElroy is a retired professor of chemical engineering from UCD, and founder of NEG8 Carbon. This spin-out company began life as Trinity Green Energies in 2014, arising out of carbon capture research at TCD and UCD. The company has developed direct air capture (DAC) technology that removes CO2 from ambient air. It operates at low temperatures, consuming less energy than many existing models. Work on Silicate Carbon pilot site in Ballyrankin, Co Wexford. Photograph: Declan Colfer The NEG8's DAC model can capture 6,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, says MacElroy. The aim is to reach 72,000 tonnes per annum – a figure roughly equivalent to the annual carbon emission output of 15,500 cars. 'Carbon capture doesn't attract the same attention or funding as sectors like pharma or IT, even though it's just as vital, if not more,' he says. A question arising is: where to put the carbon once it has been captured? Ireland has an opportunity offshore, he says, to harness several disused gas and oilfields, including Kinsale, and repurpose them for the storage of CO2 underground. The porous basalt under Co Antrim, and the natural aquifers off the coast offer other potential storing grounds. One obstacle standing in the way of DAC is lack of regulation, says MacElroy. 'There's hesitancy in permitting CO2 injection here. We need a framework for long-term storage. Other countries are already doing this. Why not us?' 'With the right policies and international collaboration Ireland could become a leader in DAC, but we must act quickly – climate deadlines aren't negotiable.' It will take a global effort to achieve climate safety, yet the funding and the treaties that are required to underpin it have been slow to materialise. Without this, says Irvine, there is a risk that 'cowboy' climate initiatives, operating without oversight or international consent, may go ahead. We are all in a place where 'every tenth of a degree matters', he says. 'If something can shave off just half a degree, that means millions fewer impacted by heatwaves, crop failures or flooding.' In Ireland we are playing catch-up, as the latest projections are that a 23 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved by 2030, far short of the legally mandated 51 per cent target. Our emissions need to fall, and quickly, but it's likely that this will not be enough to guarantee our future climate safety. To achieve that, Ireland needs local solar geoengineering efforts – such as pulling carbon out of the air and managing land to draw down CO2 – to work, along with bigger, global efforts to reflect heat from the sun back out into space. Ireland needs to answer key questions to have a chance of success. Can enhanced weathering exist here alongside sustainable agriculture? Can DAC carbon storage go along with support for offshore renewable energies. Will the public accept the complicated ethics behind solar geoengineering or reject it?
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Séamus O'Reilly: I'm so sorry for my role in encouraging Netflix
The Netflix documentary has become its own genre, and one whose tropes are recognisable at a glance. They include the introductory quotes along the lines of 'We were a typical all-American family' or 'March 3rd, 1996, began like any other day'; the opening flash-forward to the story's climax quickly that segues into a trip back in time to the story's beginning; the establishing shots of interviewees preparing to be recorded, always adjusting mics or sipping water as the camera pulls focus; and drone footage of suburban landscapes overlaid with the placenames in huge block capitals. There are also – always, always, always – more episodes than are remotely necessary to tell the story, resulting in the grievous bloat that must help satisfy Netflix's viewership metrics. None of these is a novel observation, of course. People have bemoaned the cookie-cutter aesthetic of such documentaries for years. For so long, in fact, that it's eight years since Netflix released the first series of American Vandal, a hilarious school-set mockumentary that parodied its own style. Those of us who thought this might put an end to the trend have been disabused of this notion fairly regularly in the long years since. READ MORE One recent transmogrification of the Netflix-doc aesthetic is the anthology series Trainwreck, which began with Woodstock '99 , in 2022, and has since had entries on the Balloon Boy scandal, the Astroworld Festival disaster and, this year, the notorious poop cruise. Each kept many of the tropes on board but, crucially, averted the bloat by keeping each subject to a single episode of, often, less than an hour. That was until last week's premiere of Trainwreck: Storm Area 51, the series' first two-parter. Storm Area 51 is based on the true story of the Facebook meme page that managed to incite thousands of disconnected internet users to mount a charge on Area 51 , the infamous US military facility – and long-rumoured harbourer of UFO artefacts – in Nevada. At the centre of all this is Matty Roberts, a shitposter who got bored one day and started a Facebook event called 'Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us'. Within weeks, hundreds of thousands of users – millions, even – tagged themselves as going, and of those who eventually made the trip we meet more than a few, a motley crew of internet-poisoned freaks who turn out to be a surprisingly variable group. There are your standard attention-seeking microinfluencers, some New Age hippie types, a solid contingency of tactical-gear-wearing conspiracy cultists, and several varieties of stoner burnout adrenaline junkies – one of whom is good enough to make that appellation charmingly literal by explaining that he was attracted to the cause because he reckoned 'there was probably going to be a lot of adrenaline at this event'. [ Irish actor Pauline McLynn joins Coronation Street Opens in new window ] The one thing they all have in common – and I can say this with authority, having watched two hours of their adventures in the desert in 2019 – is that they're dumb as rocks. Watching them mount their charge on Area 51 is at times like watching pigeons trying to work the Large Hadron Collider, a diverting event rendered meaningless by the fact that it takes place without purpose. Or even, one sometimes worries, without sentience. That a crowdsourced band of kooky misfits decide to swarm a heavily guarded secret military installation is objectively interesting. The fact that a good number of them do so out of a genuine belief in aliens is worthy of a documentary. That most of them did it for no reason other than to assuage a cosmic state of boredom is more compelling still. The issue, however, is that all of these people are profoundly irritating to spend time with. Hearing them out is a near-interminable slog. The show has been a big hit, but it's almost impossible to get through. As I'm a creature of the internet, it should be right up my street. Instead I find spending time – any time at all – with them prohibitively taxing. Were I not considering it for review, I would have turned it off in minutes. As such, my complete watch of its two episodes leaves me having gained nothing in particular save the knowledge that said watch will, now and forever, count towards its tally of views, making it 0.0001 per cent more likely that we'll get more like this in future. For this, and so much else, I'm truly sorry. More gripping by half is the new historical epic Chief of War ( AppleTV+ , Fridays), a lightly fictionalised retelling of the unification of Hawaii , produced, cowritten by and starring Jason Momoa . The date is sometime toward the end of the 18th century, before the modern nation of Hawaii had been established, and four separate kingdoms – Hawai'i, O'ahu, Mau'i and Kaua'i – exist in states of hot and cold war. Chief of War reminds us that few actors are capable of delivering a frowning silence so eloquently Momoa plays Ka'iana, a battle-hardened son of Maui's chief of war, now living in self-imposed exile in neighbouring Kaua'i, where he has renounced war and lives with his clan in modest obscurity, all but shunned by locals. Once a mighty warrior, he's reduced to subsisting via the raddest way imaginable: hunting giant sharks and wrestling them to death for their meat. Soon, of course, he's called back to his ancestral home, amid talk of a new threat from which he, the prodigal son, must now defend them. Here, too, we meet many tropes of genre: the reluctant hero, the returning native, the wearied winter soldier attempting to put violence – of the nonshark variety – behind him. And it's true that there's talk of duty, honour and family, of ancient prophecies and scheming foreign viziers, all of which quite often veers toward the prosaic. What elevates Chief of War is the attention it pays to so many other aspects of its presentation. For one thing, the entire show is delivered in the indigenous Olelo Hawai'ian language, which is pretty brave – and commendable – of Momoa and his cowriter, Thomas Pa'a Sibbett. Its central performances, too, afford its slightly off-the-peg characters much-needed extra depth. [ A Minecraft Movie review: Jason Momoa and Jack Black have a ball in a proudly silly family adventure Opens in new window ] If Momoa is more often cast now in breezy wisecracking roles – delivering, it must be said, decidedly mixed results – Chief of War reminds us that few actors are capable of delivering a frowning silence so eloquently. Elsewhere, the ever-dependable Temuera Morrison is given plenty of scope to suffuse his performance as Maui's stoical chief with a deep reserve of coiled, seething menace. Chief of War is also uncommonly sumptuous, from its beautifully lensed vistas and spectacular production design to its bloodily effective action set pieces and appropriately epic Hans Zimmer score. This is a big story, on a big canvas, and for all its genre trappings it's prepared to take bigger risks than one might expect. Two episodes in, I'd wager those risks may well pay off.
Irish Daily Star
13 hours ago
- Irish Daily Star
White House orders NASA to deliberately destroy two important satellites monitoring climate change
NASA has been given orders by the White House to destroy two major satellites in space that are used by farmers, scientists, as well as oil and gas companies. NASA has been given orders by the White House to destroy two major satellites in space that are used by farmers, scientists, as well as oil and gas companies. According to NPR, the data from the satellites provides detailed information about carbon dioxide and crop health. The outlet stated that the objects are the only two federally used satellites that provide information built to specifically monitor planet-warming greenhouse gases. It is currently unclear why the Trump administration seeks to destroy the satellites, as they are state-of-the-art and were expected to last for several more years. In 2023, an official data review found that the data stored there was "of exceptionally high quality," and they recommended continuing the mission for at least three more years. It comes after a chilling map revealed the US regions where 75% of people will die in a nuclear World War 3. Both missions, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, reportedly used identical measurement devices to measure carbon dioxide and plant growth around the globe. While the devices were identical, one of the satellites is actually attached to the International Space Station. Should NASA choose to comply with the directive, the standalone satellite will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. The mission has since been dubbed Phase F, per David Crisp, a longtime NASA scientist who designed the instruments and managed the missions until he retired in 2022. "What I have heard is direct communications from people who were making those plans, who weren't allowed to tell me that that's what they were told to do," Crisp said to NPR. "But they were allowed to ask me questions." "They were asking me very sharp questions. The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan," he added. According to Crisp, it makes no sense why Trump would order the termination of the satellites. Crisp commented that it makes "no economic sense to terminate NASA missions that are returning incredibly valuable data." According to the expert, maintaining the two observatories only costs $15 million per year, barely a dent in the agency's $25.4 billion budget. Two other NASA scientists have confirmed that the Trump administration had contacted mission leaders to make plans for the termination of other projects that would lose funding under Trump's proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Several scientists have expressed outrage at the proposal and argued that it could precipitate an end to the US's leadership in prevent this, lawmakers have attempted to draw up a counter to Trump's plan to keep NASA's budget roughly in line. "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47 percent and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," said Senator and top appropriator Chris Van Hollen, per Bloomberg. "Eliminating funds or scaling down the operations of Earth-observing satellites would be catastrophic and would severely impair our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to severe weather and climate disasters House representative and Committee on Science, Space and Technology ranking member Zoe Lofgren Article continues below "The Trump administration is forcing the proposed cuts in its FY26 budget request on already appropriated FY25 funds," she added. "This is illegal." It comes after a Trump family member revealed his body is 'rotting inside' as she delivered a terrifying update on the president's health.
