Reviewed by: The Female Fantastic: Gendering the Supernatural in the 1890s and 1920s ed. by Lizzie Harris McCormick, Jennifer Mitchell and Rebecca Soares Christine Ferguson (bio) The Female Fantastic: Gendering the Supernatural in the 1890s and 1920s, edited by Lizzie Harris McCormick, Jennifer Mitchell, and Rebecca Soares; pp. xliv + 246. New York and Oxford: Routledge, 2019, $140.00, £115.00. The concept of the fantastic has been crucial to feminist literary criticism since its inception, occupying a leading role in pioneering works such as Ellen Moers’s Literary Women: The Great Writers (1976) and Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination (1979). Yet even the most enduring of critical categories requires constant reinvention, and it is to this task that editors Lizzie Harris McCormick, Jennifer Mitchell, and Rebecca Soares dedicate themselves. Their work, The Female Fantastic: Gendering the Supernatural in the 1890s and 1920s, brings together fourteen essays on fantastic fiction produced by women writers from around the world and published in either the 1890s or the 1920s. Narrow in its two-decade historical focus, the book is deliberately capacious in its geographical purview, rejecting any single national focus. The collection’s essays are dedicated to a recovery and reinterpretation of the female literary fantastic. Its contents examine an impressively wide range of authorial subjects, from Margaret Oliphant, Vernon Lee, and Edith Nesbit, to Agatha [End Page 133] Christie, Radclyffe Hall, Virginia Woolf, and Djuna Barnes. All of the essays offer finely honed close readings of their focal texts; the best of them extrapolate their conclusions to larger debates and developments within gender and genre studies. Particularly successful are the contributions by Julia Panko, Elizabeth English, Andrew Hock Soon Ng, and Kate Schnur, which convincingly demonstrate how works by Christie, Nesbit, Katherine Burdekin, and Barnes speak to the gendered dynamics of radio broadcasting, science fiction, early-twentieth-century socialism, and the popular gothic. The impact of these often thoughtful contributions is, however, limited by their lack of organization within a coherent conceptualization of what the fantastic might actually be. Gathered within the collection’s titular aegis are texts whose narrative incidents and ontological frames seem to have little in common: the terrifying appearance of a ghost within an otherwise realist story, spontaneous acts of gender or species crossing that evoke no particular surprise within their narrative environment, slips in time, men who tell their children patriarchal bedtime stories, and murderers who escape the law only to face providence. What, if anything, links these occurrences? While procrustean definitions are always best avoided, the category of the fantastic risks losing all meaning if it is not accounted for in some critically consistent way. The editors seem reluctant to take up this task, eschewing—or in fact, barely mentioning—its best known articulation via the structuralist Tzvetan Todorov to offer instead a definition that does not quite fit the contents on offer. The fantastic, they assert, is “a genre of texts and a category of more-or-less supernatural seeming phenomena” (xix). The immediate problem with this definition is that it does not apply to a number of the volume’s own essays. While a woman’s passion for a doll—as depicted in Daphne du Maurier’s “The Doll” (1928) and analyzed by Donna Mitchell in chapter 2—might be unusual, it is hardly supernatural. Similarly, no laws of nature are violated in the telling of patriarchal nonsense stories in Barnes’s experimental novel Ryder (1928). Equally questionable is the designation of the fantastic as a genre: surely if the volume’s contents reveal anything, it is that the fantastic flourishes across a range of genres, from the mystery plot to the fairy tale, the ghost story, the imperial romance, and the erotic thriller. Perhaps the reluctance to define the fantastic lies in the editorial team’s greater interest with what it does than in what it is. And what the fantastic achieves, in their formulation, is a queer blurring of sex and gender binaries. For McCormick, Mitchell, and Soares, fantastic is better understood as a verb than a noun, one which works as an analogue to “queer”: “To...