From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:37:22 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:49:43 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG9904D" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:58:02 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Marge Simpson Subject: Quantum Rose MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I just saw on the SF Site that Catherine Asaro will have a new book, Quantum Rose, serialized in the May, June, July issues of Analog...and...the first installment is on Analog's website. Check it out. Ann _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:04:32 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Keith Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 19 Apr 1999 to 20 Apr1999--RECENTREADING In-Reply-To: <371E7679.CDB08B3C@meer.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Tanya Bouwman wrote: > > I just finished Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" and would love to > discuss it with anyone who has read it--recently or otherwise. > I did love the Mattapoisett language - thinking things like (hopefully not saying) "Because computers can't guess, grasp?" for days at work afterwards. Can't find it just paging through, but wasn't it Mattapoiset that had that wonderful verb "to Disney" as in "Don't Disney me, tell me the truth"? May have been _The Girl Who Was Plugged In_, though - another linguistic delight. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:31:32 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Woman on the Edge of Time Tanya Bouwman wrote: > I just finished Marge Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" and would love > to discuss it with anyone who has read it--recently or otherwise. Oh, yes! I read it right after reading Female Man, now there's a combo to get your estrogen surging. Saying I loved everything about it probably isn't critical enough, but I did. Women have long been told they were crazy if they didn't accept male domination, and Piercy carries this to the extreme. Ever since first seeing "The Snake Pit" I've been fascinated with bureaucratic dominance vs. psychological rescue stories, and I could almost see Connie in that institution. I like the ease Piercy has with sexuality, the loving care she gives to Connie while she tears her down, the friendship among the inmates. The wonderful future Connie envisions or time travels to (aren't you glad it wasn't completely clear which) is one I'm ready to buy a ticket for. I like Marge Piercy's men, not a compliment I give to most books. I just plain like Marge Peircy, don't think I've seen anything of hers that wasn't a compelling read. Thanks, Tanya for bringing up one of my favorite books. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:30:42 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: hitting the mass market Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I was told once that you've hit "the big time" in publishing when your books are in the supermarket. Well, just this past week I was waiting in line at Safeway (a very large Western-US supermarket chain) and what should I see but Elizabeth A. Lynn's _The Dragon's Winter_! I hope this means she'll be writing some more... jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:45:23 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: recent reading Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Where to begin, where to begin! I am overwhelmed with books to read and now here's the new pile being suggested...well. What I've read: The Honor Harrington books, all eight of them. Figure when the next book comes out in a year or so I might be ready to read some more. :) _The Burning Stone_, by Kate Elliott. Third in a series, I won't give out spoilers, but I really enjoy the skewed "biological determinism" in these books. _Mission Child_, Margaret McHugh. Restraining myself from comment! _Fever Season_, a mystery by predominantly SF/F author Barbara Hambly. (What I'm reading right now.) I love this woman: she has such a good vocabulary. (When I was ten I think she was the first SF author to use words I didn't know. I remember chthonic and froufrou from the same book.) _FS_ is a joy to read, both for its elegant command of language and for the elaborately physical description of early 1800s New Orleans. Plus, I actually know something about that period's epidemics of cholera and yellow fever. Alas, not suitable for discussion on this list, but we could discuss the book I have on order from the SFBC, _Dragonshadow_, also by Barbara Hambly, sequel to _Dragonsbane_. The first is a sweet, melancholy book. The hero's struggle to balance her study of magery, generally believed to require absolute and exclusive dedication in order to achieve mastery, with her love for her two children and their father, is *exactly* the struggle I see all around me in professional women. (And which I expect to face myself, unless I can completely alter the corporate culture in the next fifteen years, sigh...) On my shelf: _Hand of Prophesy_; the sequel to _Dark Water's Embrace_, alas I can't remember the name; Jennifer Roberson's latest Tiger&Del book, can you tell I don't have them in front of me; and an old Jo Clayton trilogy, _Moon...something_. Read it ten years ago, found again. Other people's discussion suggestions: I'd be happy to talk about _Freedom & Neccessity_, _Tam Lin_, _Grass_. _Woman On the Edge of Time_ is back on the shelf for rereading, as though I don't have enough! jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:48:20 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joanna (and any others keying on the Vonarburg comments) I posted the notes below to the other list, dont know if you saw it, but i will repost here and then comment on your new post on Kelys as narrator. Big Sorry to those who have already seen this on FSFFU. Fascinating the evidence there is that could support multiple answers. I believe that was intentional. Perhaps we can ask Vonarburg? I will try to get her address. I would love to ask her directly after we have meditated on it a while here. Donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ************************************* <*In the Mother's Country* as well as *The Maerlande Chronicles*......Has anyone read this? I'd love to chat about it...the premise is a post-holocaust society in which only 3% of the population is male. The men are subjugated, and the subjugation (and everything else) is questioned/considered by the central character, who is female. There are so many things to discuss...> Do say more on your topical interests or ask more....I have just finished refreshing my memory a bit with some rereading. I saw more than just the men as subjugated. Everyone had a certain "role" based on their fertility and sex. Reds, Blues, Greens. What place in the families, etc. Or no? ******spoiler alert*********************** Both the first time and the last, i took it to be "Elli" or whatever is the true divinity of the novel. Each of the persons the narrator (of the last chapter) says it has been lived in completely different times and throughout time. And it speaks as at once being that person (in their viewpoint) and yet also in the viewpoint of an observor of those persons. As I recall the book refers to Elli being within each of them or that Elli could be a part of each of them? Or perhaps I have it wrong. I remember it being christ-like mostly, hence I "read" the final narrator as the divinity of the entire story. But yet again, I could be wrong? Though I did not read it as Linta or a metafictional voice. At least not in my gut. LOL, if anyone could make it all clear I would tip a thousand hats to them. They way I see it, the narrative path seems to recreate a cycle of unknowing, then new born curiousity or new abilities as it were (seemingly "encouraged" or "implanted" by this last narrator), then discovery of new clues/information, new knowing/understanding, new growth and expansion of the society. It seemed that the final narrator was also invested in steering this universal/societal growth and was able to influence it directly by providing itself at conception. (ie. replacing Erne for Selva to make Lisbei). I really was convinced of this somewhat controlled cycle of life/growth when the final narrator is going to be in present time the "keeper" of Lisbei's journals, as Lisbei discovered and translated (kept) Garde's, etc, etc and how Lisbei had intentionally blocked out portions after having written on how Garde doing the same has catalysed her to think in new ways or in new directions. But make it all clear???? I think I just completely muddied the waters! LOL donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:02:08 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Ever more proposals! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I volunteer to compile a list of what everyone has mentioned as their upcoming reading. Though I may have deleted a message or two already. (yikes) When I post it folks can add to it anything I missed and then we will have all of the potential "formal and informal" discussion titles that have been mentioned in one list. Since it seems some smaller informal discussions are beginning (Grass, Mothers Land, Woman at the Edge, etc) perhaps we can begin to put the title in the subject line to help folks track down the already initiated discussions? I have another proposal.......when we are discussing _any_ book, I am willing to track down an email address or web site to the pertinent author and forward them questions we all agree that we would love to ask the author. So many of these authors we read are still with us and I know they enjoy good critical discussion of their books. And another idea, maybe we could invite them to join the list for short periods while we discuss their book as Nalo Hopkinson did on FSFFU? I volunteer to steam roll either of this efforts initially if folks are interested? For instance, Maureen McHugh (Mission Child) is right here in the greater Cleveland (Ohio) area, and will be at a reading at my local bookshop early next month. She would be relatively easy to track down. thoughts, pros, cons? donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:35 EDT Reply-To: TMBouwman@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 19 Apr 1999 to 20 Apr 1... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/22/99 1:03:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, SophiaDHM writes: > I read it last month. It was great! Except I felt kind of let down by the > end. Did you (or anyone else) feel that way? I wasn't so much let down as shocked. I was not shocked that Connie poisoned the doctors. I think that Marge Piercy did a great job of leading up to that so that when it happened you were left just watching, but still having known that it would happen. No, it was her medical records that shocked me. Some of it was what I expected, but then some of it wasn't. The diagnosis of schizophrenia surprised me. According to everything we'd seen from Connie's point of view, she was a normal woman who had a lot of hard experiences. She wasn't well off, she was poor--the kind of poor that makes you have to make really hard decisions about things like whether you eat tonight, or eat tomorrow night. She didn't strike me anywhere in the rest of the book as someone who was grappling with distinctly different personalities. So then I had to wonder....were we only allowed to see the "Connie" personality? Were her "visits" to the future real? Or hallucinations? Or are all of our schizophrenic population in contact with people from alternate futures? Is that why we think they are schizophrenic? Remember when Luciente says that they have only been able to maintain contact with few people in Connie's time, and that all of those were women either in prison, or in mental hospitals? Or was she misdiagnosed, because she was a poor Chicano woman who didn't know how/couldn't speak up for herself? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:31 EDT Reply-To: TMBouwman@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: Woman on The Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (Desperately trying to recall the spoiler protocol on the list!) Okay, diving in... > Oh, how I wanted to live forever with Jackrabbit, Bolivar, Lucien and all > the others. > > Connie (is this the 20th century 'lunatic' woman's name?) was a character > with whom I identified closely. I identified with her also. I found myself alternately angry and disgusted with the mental health/social services/judicial systems that -to my mind and hers-- were letting her down. I cheered so much when she slugged Geraldo with the jug and broke his nose, and like her I kept holding that thought close while she was getting put deeper and deeper into the "system". I really liked the world of the future, but felt like it was little too ideal. I was also disturbed by the almost flippant references to war, and the fact that Connie seemed to gloss over them. There was very little explanation by Luciente, et al. on what the war was and why they were fighting. Just a "them" and "us" kind of mentality. It isn't until much later when Connie travels to that "alternate" future that we get a sense of who the "enemy" is, and even later a sense of the war, but then we find out that that wasn't real, it was a "vision". > > What did you think of the PlayFem character? I'm not sure who you mean? > How about that funeral? That's my idea of a funeral. I hate when people sit around and cry and have scenes. I much prefer the telling of memories. > > Piercy does a great job with depth of characters, I think. > > What did you think of this novel? I read it almost in one sitting. (My husband hates when I do that since it takes him 2-3 weeks to finish a book and I'll finish one on one night if it catches my attention.) But the ending was what really threw me. Afterwards, I felt like I'd had my own reality turned upside down. The last few pages, where we are given the some of the doctors' reports, made me question whether I had read a science fiction story about an unfortunate and misunderstood woman who happened to be able to receive and tap into minds from the future, or if I was reading a story about someone's schizophrenic world. Was Connie really who I thought she was, or was I drawn into her madness? This is the question that still lingers with me. Of course, I hated the mental institutions--but they were written to be hated. I know from her forward that she did research with patients from mental hospitals, so I believe most of what she wrote was based on some reality. How much of what she wrote was what happened the majority of the time and how much was worst case scenarios I don't know. I feel that our mental health systems have gotten better since then, but I could be wrong. The experiment sounded very realistic and reminded me of some of the stories of pschology/mental health treatment that I read about in college. I wonder if she based that part on a real experiment? Does anyone know? > Lindy Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:07:21 +1000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Julieanne Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 19 Apr 1999 to 20 Apr 1... Comments: To: TMBouwman@aol.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:43 PM 4/22/99 EDT, Tanya Bouwman wrote: >No, it was her medical records that shocked me. Some >of it was what I expected, but then some of it wasn't. The diagnosis of >schizophrenia surprised me. According to everything we'd seen from Connie's >point of view, she was a normal woman who had a lot of hard experiences. She >wasn't well off, she was poor--the kind of poor that makes you have to make >really hard decisions about things like whether you eat tonight, or eat >tomorrow night. She didn't strike me anywhere in the rest of the book as >someone who was grappling with distinctly different personalities. Schizophrenia isn't the same as Multiple Personality Disorder(MPD). MPD is extremely rare, whereas schizophrenia has well-characterised 'classic' symptoms, a complicated hereditary component and time of onset. It appears in late adolescence or early adulthood and characterised by periodic episodes, lasting days or weeks of 'hearing voices' with delusions and hallucinations which are very 'real' to the sufferer. Often "schizophrenic episodes" are preceded by several days of sudden anxiety or panic attacks. At the time of Woman on the Edge of Time, it was probably both under- and over-diagnosed as a 'catchall' and treatment was barbarous and cruel - as also seen in films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The history of diagnosis, treatment and management of mental illnesses has never been a pretty one - books such as Phyllis Chesler's _Women and Madness_ also illustrate this, or what happened to Frances Farmer etc. R D Laing in the 1960's I think - wrote a lot about schizophrenia. One of his theories was along the lines that, since it appears in 1% of the human population across all races and cultures, (along with 10% of the population being 'schizoid') and appears throughout history, and has been relatively well-tolerated by cultures compared to other common psychiatric disorders - community-supported Visionaries and so forth - Laing believed there must have been some evolutionary advantage for classic schizophrenia to be so well-established in human populations. Not long after, I read a sci-fi novel - (I have forgotten the title and author unfortunately)...where the introduction of hyper-space travel capabilities, led to the discovery that most humans could not cope with hyper-space travel - it sent most of them mad, turned them into vegetables, unless they travelled in drugged deep-sleep through hyper-space. Machine computer logic couldn't run the hyper-space ships with accuracy either. It turned out that only schizophrenics could navigate and pilot ships through hyperspace...ie: they were the only ones who could "make sense" of the hallucinatory warped realities and multidimensions of hyperspace:) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:05:05 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Discussion Titles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As promised, what we have mentioned to date and under what status. best, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net --------------------------------- Formal Discussion to commence 4 May, Monday. ********************************************* Mission Child - Maureen McHugh Informal discussions ongoing: ------------------------------------ Grass - Sherri Tepper Woman at the Edge of Time - Marge Piercy In the Mothers' Land - Elizabeth Vonarburg Exile's Gate - C.J. Cherryh Hand of Prophecy - Severna Park Remnant Population - Elizabeth Moon Joint "just finished" or "to be read" pile: --------------------------- Jaran - Kate Elliot The Burning Stone - Kate Elliott The Ruby Tear - Suzy McKee Charnas Ring of Swords - Eleanor Arnason Woman of the Iron People - Eleanor Arnason Tam Lin - Pamela Dean Half the Day is Night - Maureen McHugh Susan Mathews Trilogy: - An Exchange of Hostages - Prisoner of Conscience - Hour of Judgement Gilda Stories - Jewelle Gomez Bohr Maker - Linda Nagata Vast - Linda Nagata Color of Distance - Amy Thompson Virtual Girl - Amy Thompson Catherine Asaro Trilogy: - Primary Inversion - Catch The Lightning - The Last Hawk - The Radiant Seas - Quantum Rose (unreleased) Slow River - Nicola Griffith Night Sky Mine - Melissa Scott Mindplayers - Pat Cadigan Synners - Pat Cadigan Freedom & Necessity - Bull/Brust Flying Cups & Saucers - Tiptree short-story collection The Rising of the Moon - Flynn Connolly Deed of Paksenarrion Trilogy - Elizabeth Moon - Sheepfarmer's Daughter - Divided Allegiance - Oath of Gold Kerrion Saga trilogy - Janet Morris (could not sort out the titles) A Point of Honour - Dorothy J Heydt 40,000 in Gehenna - C. J. Cherryh Rider at the Gate - C. J. Cherryh Cloud's Rider - C. J. Cherryh Singer from the Sea - Sheri S. Tepper Six Moon Dance - Sheri S. Tepper Sideshow - Sheri S. Tepper Borderline - SS/Novella Collection - Leanne Frahm Archangel - Sharon Shinn Island in the Sea of Time - S M Stirling Black Swan, White Raven - edited by Datlow and Windling Pattern Master - Octavia Butler Octavia Butler Xenogenesis trilogy: - Imago - Adulthood Rites - Dawn Wild Seed - Octavia Butler Acorna - Anne McCaffrey The Masterharper of Pern - Anne McCaffrey Planet Pirate Series - Anne McCaffrey - Sassinak with Elizabeth Moon - The Death of Sleep Jody Lynn Nye - Generation Warriors with Elizabeth Moon - The Planet Pirates with Jody Lynn Nye and Elizabeth Moon To Say Nothing of the Dog - Connie Willis Brightness Falls from the Air - James Tiptree Dark Waters Embrace - Stephen Leigh The Moon & The Sun-Vonda McIntyre Beholders Eye-Julie Czerneda Of Swords & Spells-Delia Marshall Turner Expendable - James Alan Gardner Vigilant - James Alan Gardner Exile's Song - Marion Zimmer Bradley Fool's War - Sarah Zettel Medicine Show - Jody Lynn Nye Earth Herald - Jan Clark Jack of Kinrowan - Charles de Lint The Little Country - Charles de Lint The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars - Steven Brust Snow White and Rose Red - Patricia Wrede Briar Rose - Jane Yolen MageHeart - Jane Routley Fire Angels - Jane Routley Hand of Prophesy - Severna Park Speaking Dreams - Severna Park Child Garden - Geoff Ryman Black Wine - Candas Jane Dorsey Sarah Canary - Karen Joy Fowler Lightwing - Tara K. Harper Anvil of the Sun - Anne Lesley Groell Waterdance - Anne Logston Thrones, Dominations, by Dorothy L. Sayers & Jill Paton Walsh (non-fiction) Fever Season - Barbara Hambly (mystery) Dragonshadow - Barbara Hambly Dragonsbane - Barbara Hambly Trilogy by Jo Clayton: - Moongather - Moonscatter - Changer's Moon Sword-Born - Jennifer Roberson The list so far...... END ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:09:22 +1000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Woman on The Edge of Time Comments: To: TMBouwman@aol.com In-Reply-To: <5c449f25.24511c33@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:43 PM 4/22/99 EDT, Tanya Bouwman wrote: > >I really liked the world of the future, but felt like it was little too >ideal. I was also disturbed by the almost flippant references to war, and >the fact that Connie seemed to gloss over them. There was very little >explanation by Luciente, et al. on what the war was and why they were >fighting. Just a "them" and "us" kind of mentality. It isn't until much >later when Connie travels to that "alternate" future that we get a sense of >who the "enemy" is, and even later a sense of the war, but then we find out >that that wasn't real, it was a "vision". I didn't like the future world - too cutesy, perfect and simplistic, although I did like some features, the funeral scene for example. But then, I have always felt uncomfortable with descriptions of androgynous societies but can't really *put my finger on* why I feel that way. I guess part of it, is that I just can't buy into the concept that removing gender differences - physical/biological, linguistic etc, is some sort of 'magic bullet' solution that will automatically remove all human power-relationships or "them and us" mentalities. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:32:44 +1000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Julieanne Subject: Discussion Titles- BDGs in real-time? In-Reply-To: <00a401be8d36$17eb4e80$1bb11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:05 PM 4/22/99 -0400, donna simone wrote: >As promised, what we have mentioned to date and under what status. ..Just a thought, from seeing so many wonderful books and titles listed by Donna :)) - if anyone is interested in having real-time BDGs through IRC?? I am owner/manager of two channels (chat-rooms) on a free public-access IRC network. The channels/chat-rooms have been empty and unused for a long time now, but remain open 24-hours a day with servers across the world - as it costs me nothing to keep the chat-room registrations active - so I thought of offerring a 'meeting-place' for FSFFU ppl:) If anyone is interested for more information on how to access, or even in being an organiser/moderator/operator for groups and mutually agreeable times etc - let me know by e-mail and will forward the info you need to get set up:) Cheers - Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:02:27 -0400 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Ever more proposals! In-Reply-To: <012d01be8d0b$c4eee5e0$37b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I am so uncomfortable with this -- especially since finding out that Vonda, an active listmember who knew and played with us for a while, left the list over comments on Dreamsnake, (which I just didn't get, but didn't comment on due to her presence). I still think the lack of discussion other than oozing compliments for BGITR had to do with Nalo's presence (and that Nalo was invited to comment on my comments, which came after she left the list, even though I hadn't known that, probably didn't do much to encourage a free flow of ideas and critique), and I really really think that the author's presence constrains discussion -- who here really wants to risk hurting the feelings of a listmember? Especially one who has put obvious amounts of time and energy and creativity into a book. On 22 Apr 99, , donna simone wrote: > And another idea, maybe we could invite them to join the list for short > periods while we discuss their book as Nalo Hopkinson did on FSFFU? > > thoughts, pros, cons? > donna > donnaneely@earthlink.net > Rudy Leon PhD Student Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:59:42 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Ever more proposals! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Leon: If I may offer some clarification. Vonda McIntyre leaving the list had nothing to do with the BDG comments on Dreamsnake. This is a misperception or our own list's "urban myth". It happened long before the Dreamsnake BDG and was, as I recall, over the harsh and argumentative tone of postings in general, and to some degree, over debates that arose over her intent in Moon and the Sun which she made strong efforts to describe to the list. Moon and Sun though was never a BDG book. It was I believe about reaching her limit, NOT about hearing critiques of her book. She is a long time writer. She has been receiving criticism for many many years. Why do I know any of this? Because McIntyre posted a couple of private notes regarding the savaging of other listers comments about Moon and Sun during the same discussion in which she explained her departure. Leon: < I still think the lack of discussion other than oozing compliments for BGITR had to do with Nalo's presence (and that Nalo was invited to comment on my comments, which came after she left the list, even though I hadn't known that, probably didn't do much to encourage a free flow of ideas and critique), and I really really think that the author's presence constrains discussion -- who here really wants to risk hurting the feelings of a listmember?> Again for clarification. Both Nicola Griffith and Carolyn Ives Gilman were members of FSFFU list during discussions of their titles, Ammonite and Halfway Human. They chose not to participate unless questions were asked. I dont recall wholesale gushing on those titles. Of course we can check back to the archives to verify my memory. An aside I cannot resist.....I have not noticed a general concern for hurting peoples' feelings on FSFFU? donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:48:25 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Recent Readings MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Wow, I am very impressed how much people read on this list. I hardly find time to read other speculative fiction books besides the BDG books as I try to put some general fiction and non-fiction books in-between. But going back as far as Christmas, I come up with the following - the anthology _Women of Wonder: The Classic Years_ *****, the only drawback is that many stories in this anthology are also part of the Norton anthology of American SF (ed. by Le Guin), so I knew them already. - Memoirs of a Spacewoman by Naomi Mitchison ****, I already posted on that - _The Communipaths_ (***) and _Star-Anchored, Star-Angered_ (*****) by Suzette Haden Elgin. These are books with (not about) an agent called Coyote Jones. I am hooked, the only problem is that these books have been written a long time ago and are out of print. I found a German edition of the first in a SF antiquariat here and the second in a library and call myself lucky. - _Cloned Lives_ by Pamela Sargent (*). So far I have read 2 thirds of this book and I don't like it. It's included in Laura Quilter's website but I don't find anything feminist in it. Nearly all main protagonist are men and the women are presented in very traditional roles. Did I miss something? And besides that I think it a bit boring. - _Fury_ by the Australian Maurilia Meehan (***1/2). That's about an Australian/Canadian (I never figured that out, probably it is somewhere indicated in the text but I did not recognize the hints) lay theater group intending to stage a play about Olympe de Gouges. But that's only the first part. The second part is sort of a historical novel about de Gouges which IMO does not hang well together with the first part. But both parts are in themselves very good. Does anybody know anything about Maurilia Meehan? I've carried out a search on the web but did not come up with much. - 3 German SF, 2 of them feminist, but nobody knows them here anyway. - _The History Maker_ by Alasdair Gray (****). Actually I've read that before Christmas. The novel (?) was short-listed for the Tiptree but I cannot quite decide whether the author ridiculed feminists or not. It was definitely funny in a British way (what us Germans think is British humour). The end of the story was hidden in the appendix!!! - _The Others_ by Margaret Wander Bonanno (***). Started out great but was ended in such a surprising rush, that the reader (in this case me) feels as if overrun on the highway. - _The Fifth Sacred Thing_ by Starhawk. I am in the middle of that and my reaction is mixed. In a way it can be described as a utopian SF for esoterics. And I own I am prejudiced against esoterics and allergic against too good, self-sacrificing people (probably a feeling of inadequacy) so I cannot judge it from a fair viewpoint. The storyline in itself is not bad. I am curious how it continues. At the moment the utopian city (San Francisco) faces an attack by the aggressive South and the question is how to defend the city without becoming like the aggressors. Petra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:12:41 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Ever more proposals! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/22/99 10:02:56 PM, donna wrote: <> Lovely idea. I thought having Nalo available to comment and answer questions was exciting. Of course this assumes we can also ask the "hard" questions. I don't think Nalo's presence repressed anyone's comments, or if I did I wasn't aware of it. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:41:08 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: new list, new proposals In-Reply-To: <004801be891b$87b8a560$bdb11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Donna proposed interesting things for the new list. There was some discussion but nothing final as far as I can see it. I saved some of the posts with the reactions but not all, so I may be a bit off-target in the following. On 17 Apr 99 donna simone wrote: > Two: similar things for SFF books. Instead of reading ONLY feminist > (or supposed feminist) SFF on a BDG, to select any book we want by > any author we wish, bu1t applying rigorous feminist > analysis/critique to the text. I am so saddened whenever the BDG > ends up savaging what I know to be a heartfelt effort by a fellow > feminist to write a book that respects and honors women in all their > diversity. But under our harsh critical microscope all seem to fail. I like this idea. But ..., at the moment I read about 4-5 new books a month at most (I reread a lot of book in a recreational way, you can imagine that it's more the light stuff). I wouldn't like to have more than one book on my reading agenda to be determined by 'external' forces. So, probably I would only participate in one BDG discussion per month (I distinguish here a discussion for which I read a book to be prepared from a discussion of a book that by chance I have also read). And if more list members react likewise, the numbers of discussers for one book will thin out, probably falling below the 'critical mass' with the result that there is no discussion. Thank you, Donna, for compiling the 'recent read' list. It is a new approach to instigate discussions. So far, simple messages have rarely been successfull to start a discussion on a specific book. Many times list members posted that they liked a book, some people said they would like to discuss it, and then ... nothing (perhaps some people carried out discussions off-list after that). When discussions evolved around a novel, it unfortunately often was because somebody took offence about what somebody else said about a book. The BDG was one solution for that, I hope the 'recent read' list also furthers discussions. In her post Donna also suggested to discuss SFF TV series and movies. I liked that idea despite the problems other list members already have pointed out and which also apply to me (US movies reach Germany with a 1/2 to 1 year delay and the chance to see a specific TV series is small). I think one simply has to accept that not all list members have the chance to participate in every discussion and to compromise. If we use all 3 options proposed there should be something for everybody: 1. Video: Especially not too new and not too old mainstream movies will be probably available in videostores in most parts of the (industrialized) world. Not all list members, however, do have a video, but a significant part probably do. Question is how to determine 'significant' availability of a movie on video (I am not very familiar with SF movies, we need an expert here) and how to decide on the selection. If we start with a VDG (video discussion group) IMO movies to be discussed should be scheduled for the same month or so. 2. New movies: The delay may vary between countries but I think new US movies reach other parts of the world months to 1 year after released for the first time in the US. I assume there are also differences of several weeks within the US. I only see a possibility to 'schedule' discussions for the US list members. I think it could go like this: discussions are scheduled to begin 4-8 weeks after movie release. Participants should adhere to a strict SPOILER protocol. List members who see the movie later can read up the discussion in the list archive and can continue it. 3. TV series: That's hardest. As far as I know even within the US it varies very much what seasons/episodes are shown of a series. On the other hand, in the past it was especially easy to instigate discussions on TV series (think of Star Trek, Xena, X-Files, Babylon 5) and IMO the only thing we need is a strict and specific SPOILER protocol. With specific I mean something like "SPOILER for people who haven't yet seen episode XYZ of ABC season". Another idea might be to compile list archives of postings on special TV series (the FSFFU-Star Trek archive etc.). Comments? Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:18:38 EDT Reply-To: XenoThyme@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "B. Garrahy" Subject: Re: Hurt feelings? (Ever more proposals!) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Donna wrote: <> I have been on the FSFFU for about a year now. I've only posted a couple times, but each time I received harsh feedback either on or offlist. Still, the book discussions are excellent, so I continue to lurk and delete the flame war threads. I am hoping that this list proves to be kinder. Bridgett ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:22:46 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: FEVER SEASON -- barely On Topic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jessie: I know exactly what you mean about Barbara and her vocabulary. Don't think I've ever read a work of hers without acquiring a new word. I had SUCH a hard time with FEVER SEASON because of the excellent writing, I suspect, that I'm not sure I'll be embarking on the third in the series any time soon -- and I've had an ARC for months! I suspect GRAVEYARD DUST won't involve as much heat and illness and yuckiness - but with magic, there's a whole new area for her to describe and disturb me with! Maryelizabeth GD has magic, hence my justification of posting to the list. -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:32:13 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Presence of authors during book discussion In-Reply-To: <199904230403.AAA23019@mailbox.syr.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > On 22 Apr 99, , donna simone wrote: > > And another idea, maybe we could invite them to join the list for > > short periods while we discuss their book as Nalo Hopkinson did on > > FSFFU? On 23 Apr 99 Rudy Leon wrote: > I am so uncomfortable with this -- especially since finding out that > I still think the lack > of discussion other than oozing compliments for BGITR had to do with > Nalo's presence (and that Nalo was invited to comment on my > comments, which came after she left the list, even though I hadn't > known that, probably didn't do much to encourage a free flow of > ideas and critique), and I really really think that the author's > presence constrains discussion -- who here really wants to risk > hurting the feelings of a listmember? Especially one who has put > obvious amounts of time and energy and creativity into a book. On 23 Apr 99 Phoebe Wray wrote: > Lovely idea. I thought having Nalo available to comment and answer > questions was exciting. Of course this assumes we can also ask the > "hard" questions. I don't think Nalo's presence repressed anyone's > comments, or if I did I wasn't aware of it. On 23 Apr 99 donna simone wrote: > Again for clarification. Both Nicola Griffith and Carolyn Ives > Gilman were members of FSFFU list during discussions of their > titles, Ammonite and Halfway Human. They chose not to participate > unless questions were asked. I dont recall wholesale gushing on > those titles. Of course we can check back to the archives to verify > my memory. Opinions obviously differ. I'd like to point out that there was an important difference between the presence of Nicola Griffith and Carolyn Gilman during the discussion and Nalo Hopkinson's: while we knew that CG was on the list she only posted after the discussion was over and reacted than to some of the issue that came up. Nicola did not participate and as far as I remember did not post at the end. If my memory is correct, Vonda McIntyre also rarely posted during the BDG discussion of her book (or not at all). Nalo Hopkinson answered every postings and so people did not discuss with each other but with Hopkinson (it reminded me of tennis, if you know what I mean). It was my impression that that constrained list members, at least the postings were different as when people discuss with each other. Personally I liked how it was done during the _Halfway Human_ discussion best. I think direct discussions with authors are also interesting, but the forum should then be set up differently. In general, it is my opinion that when we write something on a public list we should always have in mind, that the author could see it. That does not mean no criticism, but polite, reasoned criticism and no personal attacks. The hardest is probable not to speculate about the personal opinions of an author based on her/his book (and looking back I am not sure I always avoided this pithfall). Any comments? Petra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:19:31 EDT Reply-To: SophiaDHM@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's funny, because it seems a lot of people questioned the reality of the future and the time travel, but I bought that hook, line and sinker. I was let down because it ended so abruptly, and it seemed to me there was still so much untold... As for the diagnoses and all after the fact, I saw it as being the misdiagnoses of doctors blinded by patriarchy, no more. I didn't think it revealed anything about the "real" Connie or that we hadn't seen that side of her til then. I don't remember now, but did it say she had other personalities? Because that is a common mistake people who haven't studied psychology make. "Schizophrenia" is a label for people who have lost contact with reality, either due to delusions or hallucinations. "Dissociative Identity Disorder" is the newest label for those with so-called "split personalities." (It used to be "Multiple Personality Disorder.") And I did like how the book implied that maybe there are people in institutions we think are crazy may in fact be in contact with the future. I've often wondered if we are just labeling and putting away what we don't understand. After all, in some cultures, people who saw vivions or heard voices were called saints or medicine men/women, or shamans. Sophia In a message dated 4/22/1999 5:44:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, TMBouwman@AOL.COM writes: << I wasn't so much let down as shocked. I was not shocked that Connie poisoned the doctors. I think that Marge Piercy did a great job of leading up to that so that when it happened you were left just watching, but still having known that it would happen. No, it was her medical records that shocked me. Some of it was what I expected, but then some of it wasn't. The diagnosis of schizophrenia surprised me. According to everything we'd seen from Connie's point of view, she was a normal woman who had a lot of hard experiences. She wasn't well off, she was poor--the kind of poor that makes you have to make really hard decisions about things like whether you eat tonight, or eat tomorrow night. She didn't strike me anywhere in the rest of the book as someone who was grappling with distinctly different personalities. So then I had to wonder....were we only allowed to see the "Connie" personality? Were her "visits" to the future real? Or hallucinations? Or are all of our schizophrenic population in contact with people from alternate futures? Is that why we think they are schizophrenic? Remember when Luciente says that they have only been able to maintain contact with few people in Connie's time, and that all of those were women either in prison, or in mental hospitals? Or was she misdiagnosed, because she was a poor Chicano woman who didn't know how/couldn't speak up for herself? >> ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:41:04 EDT Reply-To: NicolaZ@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Presence of authors during book discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are probably as many different opinions on this as there are authors, but speaking for myself, I *loved* hearing criticism of AMMONITE. Readers who posted were always polite--which is all I ask--but didn't seem to pull punches, which is very helpful (after all, how can a writer learn if she doesn't get honest feedback?). I had said, with the BDG of AMMONITE, that I would answer questions at the end, as opposed to ones that came up during the discussion...but no one asked any. (I didn't want to answer all the q's that came up during the discussion, because I thought some of them were rhetorical, and some had been answered by other readers.) I'd be happy to either stay out of it altogether (but I'll lurk ) or to answer a list of questions at the end. I *don't* want to be any kind of constraint to the discussion; this kind of thing is meat and drink to me. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:42:06 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Presence of authors during book discussion In-Reply-To: <199904231632.SAA05736@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I don't mind if an author is on the list and "listens in" on a discussion as long as I have the illusion that the author is thick skinned. I honestly don't want to hurt any author's feelings but I also want to be able to discuss the author's books without feeling that I need to walk on eggshells. There have been a couple of books in the BDG that I didn't like but I said so politely and tried to be fair. What's the point of discussing a book if you can't be honest about it? Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:03:57 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time In-Reply-To: <001501be8cdd$95a78f40$40cafcd0@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read this a few months ago and it was like a breath of fresh air. I hadn't read a book that grabbed me and shook me up like this one did in quite some time. Books like this are the reason I joined FSFFU in the first place. I wanted to find more books that I could sink my teeth into, books that would linger in my mind for a long time after reading them and books that would change the way I look at things. I felt really angry at the system that Connie was trapped in, a system that makes it so easy for a person to disappear into. The way Connie had to act like a "good" patient, the way the staff treated her so condescendingly, the way she and the other patients were used as guinea pigs was almost painful to read. Connie was so realistically drawn that I could understand why she couldn't completely accept a future where babies are grown in artificial wombs and men can nurse babies. But she made a leap of faith and chose this future world even though she didn't really understand it. (Or maybe she was just crazy-- that question is one of the most interesting things about WOTEOT.) Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:58:15 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Ever more proposals! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rudy wrote: > I am so uncomfortable with this -- especially since finding out that Vonda, > an active listmember who knew and played with us for a while, left > the list over comments on Dreamsnake, (which I just didn't get, but > didn't comment on due to her presence). I still think the lack of > discussion other than oozing compliments for BGITR had to do > with Nalo's presence (and that Nalo was invited to comment on my > comments, which came after she left the list, even though I hadn't > known that, probably didn't do much to encourage a free flow of > ideas and critique), and I really really think that the author's > presence constrains discussion -- who here really wants to risk > hurting the feelings of a listmember? Especially one who has put > obvious amounts of time and energy and creativity into a book. Vonda didn't leave the list because of the comments over DREAMSNAKE. Every writer knows she will receive public comments on her work and not all those will be complimentary. It comes with the territory. We learn how to deal with it. The reason is more complex. She had a great deal going on in her life at that time, events unrelated to writing. During that time, some comments on the list became personal. Assumptions were made about her, as a person, that weren't true, particularly in the TMAS discussion. Also, IMO, some comments on her books went over the line from reasoned commentary to stabs. A person only has so much energy, and at that point in her life she had to conserve her emotional resources. So she left. As to discussing books on the list, I hope folks won't let the presence of authors constrain literary discourse. Many writers find input into their books useful, whether it is complimentary or not. Everyone benefits from a healthy, courteous exchange of ideas. Kate Elliott is also on the list (or at least the old list). I wouldn't have described the JARAN discussion as only oozing compliments. I would also have been interested in hearing her comments. Did she really intend the various things that were ascribed as her intent? I don't know. I just hope she didn't feel she =had= to be silent. Women have been silent for throughout a great deal of our history. When we've spoken, our words have often been dismissed. The last thing we want to do is turn those same techniques on ourselves. I've been in USENET discussions where readers have savaged or dismissed my books, knowing I was reading their posts, knowing I would probably respond. And yeah, it hurts, particularly when the comments are made without thought to their impact. But if you're a writer, there is simply no way around that aspect of the business. No matter how popular a person's work may be, some people won't like it. Some readers make carefully reasoned comments. Others take pleasure in gutting books. As writers, we have to find the emotional resources to deal with all of it. So what do you do, as a writer? Usually not much. If folks ask me specific questions or express interest in knowing my intent with a story, I try to answer. I also pretty much have to respond if a comment affects my professional reputation (eg, a claim that the science is wrong when it is correct, or a claim that I believe something I don't believe). This is something people often don't seem to realize. Few people would walk into their place of business and start throwing around, in a very public manner, unsubstantiated claims about another person's job performance or personal motivations. But all that seems to fall by the wayside when discussing writers. The bottom line is that courtesy is valuable. Saying "this is stupid trash" is a lot different than saying "this didn't work for me because ... " After all, the same voices won't speak to everyone. Nor should they. There are about three billion women in the world and we're all different. Inclusivity and diversity is what feminism is about. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:16:16 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Re: hitting the mass market MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I was told once that you've hit "the big time" in publishing when your books are in the supermarket. Well, just this past week I was waiting in line at Safeway (a very large Western-US supermarket chain) and what should I see but Elizabeth A. Lynn's _The Dragon's Winter_! I hope this means she'll be writing some more...> 'Dragon's Winter' has also been released in the UK. Saw a review of it in the BRUM Group news (Birmingham SF Group) form April 1999. They liked it. donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:43:38 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > It's funny, because it seems a lot of people questioned the reality of the > future and the time travel, but I bought that hook, line and sinker. I was > let down because it ended so abruptly, and it seemed to me there was still so > much untold... I thought it was pretty ambiguous. I got neither the strong feeling that it was a vision, nor the strong feeling that it wasn't. At the beginning, I was right there with her travelling in the future. By the end, it wasn't clear to me. I don't think it was really clear to her, either, and I think that might have been at least part of the point... Ambiguous endings are frustrating for me, but I do tend to chew on the book more after I'm done with it if there is an ambiguous ending. I have to go back and look at _The Last Hawk_ because I'm not sure if it's clear what happens to Kelric at the end. I finished it at 3am a couple of nights ago and may have missed something... :-) -allen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:37:05 EDT Reply-To: JGOLTZMAN@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joanna Goltzman Bruscell Subject: Woman on the edge of time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey wrote: (Or maybe she was just crazy-- that question is one of the most interesting things about WOTEOT.) I think the book asks us to think about what "crazy" means and who gets to decide on the definition. The doctors who use abuse their patients--is that a "normal" behavior? It is "normal" not to mind risking the lives of other people to further your own career? What does that say about someone? People do it all the time and they get called a lot of things, but not "crazy." Crazy can mean whatever society decides it means. I think Piercy takes the word and challenges its accepted definition. Maybe Connie is "crazy," but her craziness helps her get through the "real" world and all the "normal" behaviors of the people she meets. Connie's craziness is a type of freedom for her, the only freedom she experiences. Just some thoughts Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:35:23 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Informal discussion: Woman on the Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------22EB4BBFF7F0CC53936D85F6" --------------22EB4BBFF7F0CC53936D85F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Great posts on WotEoT. You've all reminded me of the complex ideas and feelings I brought away from this novel. > Stacey wrote: > > >(Or maybe she was just crazy-- that question is one of the most > >interesting things about WOTEOT.) > > Joanna replied: I think the book asks us to think about what "crazy" > means and who gets to decide on the definition. (snip) > Crazy can mean whatever society decides it means. I think Piercy takes the > word and challenges its accepted definition. (snip) Connie's craziness is > a type of freedom for her, the only freedom she experiences. > Connie's mental state was central to my perspective of the novel. I don't know if she's crazy by faulty societal standards, ("the poor must be crazy, you know, else why would they live like that?"), by failed mental health definitions, or if she was an extremely sensitive human who had been bombarded by negative stimulus for too, too long. . . there are dozens of possibilities. I had to really consider what crazy was, and whether it was all that bad, despite the bad press crazyness receives. If crazy means one defends oneself, or uses force as return treatment to tormentors (as in punching the brother), I am sympathetic. I was most impressed with the cultural view of mental "illness" in Luciente's world, as well as the treatments for it. If being "crazy" every so often is normal, oh yeah! let me in. :) I was equally horrified with the description of the experimental treatment about which Connie had no choice. Legal rape. I cringe every time I think of it. Who else was impressed with how the people in Luciente's collective/town did not flee screaming when she Connie showed up to the party with pins in sticking out of her head? The characters found it horrible, but did not turn from Connie and treated her as usual. (BTW--I cannot remember how to spell the place name of "Mapp . . ..?" I don't hear words in my head when I read, which I suspect makes the spelling of unusual words difficult.) > Sophia wrote: It's funny, because it seems a lot of people questioned > the reality of the > future and the time travel, but I bought that hook, line and sinker. > (snip) > > As for the diagnoses and all after the fact, I saw it as being the > misdiagnoses of doctors blinded by patriarchy, no more. I didn't think > it > revealed anything about the "real" Connie or that we hadn't seen that > side of > her til then. (snip) I saw it the whole thing with the existence of Luciente and (Mapp. . .?) as part of a possible future, but one which was also real at that particular time (which encompasses both Luciente's and Connie's time). I can't describe my understanding of that part further, except to informally speculate on the simultaneity of time. . . (Ah, how I wish I had the math to make an understanding of physics part of my life). Piercy did an excellent job of carefully detailing environments, cultures, characters. Some of the best world and character creation I've read in science fiction. Regarding Connie's official diagnosis, I too assumed it to be a variety of patriarchal mind-sets placing people in neat, carefully outlined categories. Not only to be annoying or hurtful, though. I got the sense that most (some) of them thought that they were contributing to cures or improved mental health. . . according to their definitions. Too bad the doctors did not seem to see Connie or the others as anything other than test subjects to be improved upon. If they had made a human connection with those receiving implants against their wills, would they be able to continue with the experimentation? Scary question. Then again, was the experiment actually about mental illness, or was it actually aimed at "improving" marginal peoples, such as those in poverty, those using controlled substances, and anyone else who is "flawed?" For me, this novel creates questions which I have never answered completely. This makes re-reading WotEoT a periodic necessity. Time for me to get another copy. I haven't read this since I lent my copy out about 5 years ago, I think. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:14:25 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: Authors' inclusion in lit discussion (Was:Ever more proposals!) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit donna simone wrote: snip. > And another idea, maybe we could invite them to join the list for short > periods while we discuss their book as Nalo Hopkinson did on FSFFU? > > I volunteer to steam roll either of this efforts initially if folks are > interested? (snip) > > thoughts, pros, cons? I'd be happy to invite authors not already on-list to be present during discussion of their works, if not forever. It's been stimulating and fun to have on-list contact with the authors whose works I read. Mostly, I simply learn from the interaction. However, if we actively invite authors to participate, not to mention keeping the authors and readers who already participate, I feel we must also do our best to keep the environment flame-free (or at least have the ability to put out fires immediately). There must be a way to do this without compromising honesty. I'm usually consciously aware that a book may just be "a book," to me, but that it is always the result of someone's hard work. I try to remember this whenever I am reacting to a book as a reader. Of course, less than honest feedback doesn't do anyone any lasting good. People write for others to read. Ms. Asaro's suggestion of using formula (even if only in my mind) to discuss works of "this works/doesn't work for me because. . ." is a good one. I vote to notify authors that their work(s) is/are in discussion. For me, I have no preference regarding how they choose to participate--during, before, after-discussion. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:08:09 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lindy Lovvik wrote: > > I saw it the whole thing with the existence of Luciente and (Mapp. . > .?) as part of a possible future, but one which was also real at that > particular time (which encompasses both Luciente's and Connie's > time). I can't describe my understanding of that part further, > except to informally speculate on the simultaneity of time. . . > (Ah, how I wish I had the math to make an understanding of physics > part of my life). I also understood the future of Mattapoisett as a possibility. Especially if you find that future to be too nice and perfect, and in some ways it is, remember that one scence where Connie sends herself and ends up with that prositite type woman who is owned and basically kept imprisoned. It's never really clear if that is an alternative future (i.e. it will happen if Connie doesn't end the experiments somehow) or if that is another thing going on in the same future-- perhaps the reason the people of Mattapoisett are at war. Rabbit dies in the war, right? Haven't read it in awhile, but those things stuck with me. I love the end of the book. To me, it is an affirmation of choice and agency even when you are in the most limited and coercive circumstances imaginable. Isn't there a line about how they can force everything but your allegiance? Connie sees the bigger picture and is willing to pay the price in order to prevent the doctors from continuing their "research". Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:14:04 GMT Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: Authors' inclusion/now "Wise Reader" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Lindy wrote: >However, if we actively invite authors to participate, not to mention >keeping the authors and readers who already participate, I feel we must >also do our best to keep the environment flame-free (or at least have >the ability to put out fires immediately). There must be a way to do >this without compromising honesty. > Given the discussion lately about discussing books when authors are on line (and I was in the earlier list when the discussion of McInty're TMATS took off to become a pretty nasty debate over history, convents, women, and a whole lotta stuff that didn't apply, including what seemed to be vicious personal attacks on the author), I thought I'd add to what Lindy and Catherine Asaro noted about the KIND of response/discussion we can do. I teach English, including composition and creative writing. I am very careful to include peer response in those classes (especially creative writing where my 20 plus students have been meeting in groups of seven or so for six weeks workshopping material every week). I am equally careful to train students how to give peer response in a productive fashion (this means honesty, but a certain approach to another writer's work). Since students in these classes have to be workshopped as well as workshop others, there are some built-in safeguards that don't exist when readers feel free to savage a writer's book (or their character based on some reading of the book) while never having to put their own work on the line. But some of the concepts I teach might be useful (and, i hope, not too off topic). The term "Wise Reader" comes from Orson Scott Card's book on writing SF -- when he encourages writers to get responses from "Wise Readers." But the concept isn't original: Peter Elbow has a method for generating responses to writing that fits as well that he calls 'reader-based feedback.' While both of them are talking about responses to work in progress, the method can be adapted to any sort of text that's published as well. Important concepts include: DESCRIBE what you are 'reading' or the process of your reading. What is happening to you as you read. (We all 'respond' differently to a literary work--the best info a writer can get is what it is in the 'text' that, as far as you can tell, leads to your response.) SUMMARIZE the writing; describ eyour undersstanding of what it says or what is happening. FOCUS on the book, not the 'author' (NEVER assume any character in the book reflects the writer's personal perspective or beliefs. A book is NOT a person, and trying to guess at the writer's "intent" from a fictional text is an exercise in futility.) Even when students tell me they are writing autobiographical fiction, I still refer to "the speaker" or "the narrator" or "the protagonist" in my comments because even in autobiographical fiction, the "character or persona" is not the writer. DO UNTO OTHERS.....don't write or say anything to somebody that you would hate to have written or said to you. This does NOT mean you only have to say "nicey-nice" things about the work--it means you phrase your comments to be constructive. If something didn't work or confuses you, try to explain why. This is easier to do when you're sitting looking at somebody--the distance caused. Tough reading or high standards are NOT the same thing as nastiness or personal attacks. In my classes, I encourage students to start with a summary kind of response (more or less neutral), note something that works well for them (if NOTHING works for you, why are you reading/did you finish the book?), then go on to areas of confusion. I teach them this keeping in mind many of them will be future teachers, and this method is taught as a better way of responding to student writing. I've learned myself through epxerience that if you start wiht a "problem" or identifying something wrong, then later praise is not noticed as much. (I've felt it too with editorial comments and book reviews.) What I tell them NOT to do is the "inner stereotypical ENGLISH teacher," that gruesome monster that lurches out with red ink dropping to slash everything that's wrong. Sadly, even beginning college students seem quite capably trained in pointing out everything that's WRONG or BAD in a piece of writing (published or peer). *sigh* A final question to the list to think about: it seemed at times in our earlier discussions on the other list that sometimes things broke down over the assumption that a book was "feminist" or not (the fight began over what feminist meant of course). The more I read and the more I think about and write about these works, the more I wonder if there isn't a better way to phrase the discussion--to think that various books have different FEMINIST elements and ideas in them (allowing that feminist movement includes a variety of ideologies, foci, positions, and philosophies, and that we might want to think about identifying what we see as those elements in a book rather than having only TWO positions for a book to occupy (FEMINIST/not feminist). That might be a part of our response as well.... Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:36:55 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Authors' inclusion/now "Wise Reader" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Robin for the tips on responding to an author's work -- whether or not the writer is present, it is helpful info. phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:02:46 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: WotEoT: the ending MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Big Yellow Woman wrote: > I love the end of the book. To me, it is an affirmation of choice and > agency even when you are in the most limited and coercive circumstances > imaginable. Isn't there a line about how they can force everything but > your allegiance? Connie sees the bigger picture and is willing to pay > the price in order to prevent the doctors from continuing their > "research". > > Susan I hadn't thought about it as an affirmation of choice in tight quarters. I can see it, though, now that you've mentioned it. I grieved for all involved. I grieved for Connie in that she had been driven to the point where poisoning others was a viable choice. It was an act which may have saved future test subjects, yet sentenced her forever to loss of freedom (assuming she remains in her own present time. . . ). Plus, killing others, even in self defense (like those in Mattapoissett feel they are doing in their war) changes a person. And after she poisons the team, doesn't she learn that they had decided to discontinue the experiment and remove the implants? Of course, this doesn't suggest that they would not eventually try again. I was sorry for the researchers, too. (I have this annoying empathy for everyone. . .) However, I would also do what was necessary to stop my body and mind from invasive experiments. The idea truly creeps me out. Vaguely, I remember also that the experiments did interfere with Connie's ability to connect with Luciente, which adds another layer to the "crazy/not crazy" theme. If she were bonkers, and Mattapoisett was a symptom, (which seems entirely harmless to me) the "treatment" was performing its job. If she was not, the treatment was interfering with her reality. I identified with Connie and her perspective. I trusted the reliability of this character and I don't think she was out of touch with reality--rather in touch with more realities than most people are. Regarding the playfem character (the one Luciente accidentally visits in the smoggy, high-rise city. . . partly because of the interference from the implants?), I was not certain whether it was another possible future, or, as you said, the warring opposition. It works either way. Lots of things do in this novel. I think that this book would be a good choice to discuss in real time online in a chat room. Someone suggested or offered to set one up. That may be a good idea, although my time to participate is limited. Lindy E.S. Thanks for spelling out Mattapoisett. I'm saying it over and over in my head so's I'll be continue to be able to spell it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:17:23 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: Woman on the Edge of Time - schizophrenia Sophia Hegner said >>It's funny, because it seems a lot of people questioned the reality of the future and the time travel, but I bought that hook, line and sinker. I was let down because it ended so abruptly, and it seemed to me there was still so much untold... As for the diagnoses and all after the fact, I saw it as being the misdiagnoses of doctors blinded by patriarchy, no more. I didn't think it revealed anything about the "real" Connie or that we hadn't seen that side of her til then.<< In order to read fiction there has to be a suspension of disbelief. We bought the fact that Connie was communicating with the future because we were supposed to accept that as part of the plot. However, Piercy has a commitment to promoting the humanism of oppressed people, so a mere suspension of disbelief wasn't adequate for us to feel the full impact of the treatment of women, of poor women, of people with various genders and sexual preferences. I think that's why she made the book so ambiguous. It's a fascinating read as fiction, but it's a call to social activism. As a labor and delivery nurse I frequently deal with women giving birth for the fifth or sixth time when they don't have custody of their previous children. I know in this patriarchal society there are many reasons a good mother might loose custody of her children if she's been forced to the scrutiny of overzealous social workers who don't allow for individual differences in parenting. However, I admit that when I first meet a woman after having the knowledge of the loss of her other children, I just assume the loss due to her inability to parent, probably because of drug use. I know such an assumption is unfair, but the situation is so common where I work that it's kind of like thinking horse rather than zebra when I hear hoofbeats. I give very good care to these women, but mine is the easy job, it ends with birth. The task of helping these women care for themselves and their babies goes to social workers, and I wouldn't want their job for anything. Connie's early life was filled with financial and emotional loss and devastation. Of course she went into a deep depression when the man she loved was killed. The fact that she harmed her daughter was entirely accidental, but she presented to the first mental institution as a woman who had lost custody of her baby because of child abuse. The lowest of the low. A woman who cannot parent is seen by this and many societies as a completely worthless human being. A woman's job is to bear and raise children. If she fails at this, what is the point of her existence? Ideally a mental institution would work to help a person discover her strengths, work through her emotional devastation and find a way to lead a life she feels is worthwhile. How do you do that when the institution is staffed by low paid workers as the primary contact with the patients, reams of paperwork and bureaucratic constraints, poor funding and administrators who might as well be managing an auto production plant as a health care facility? I've read that the diagnosis of schizophrenia is often given to people by default. Connie was tagged as a violent woman from her first encounter with the system, and that tag was never changed. She broke her child's arm, she had no respect for the society that killed her man, she had no resources to care for herself. She saw no options for getting her child back and making her life better. The "have nots" who don't see options, who can't figure out how society works for the "have's" must have some reason for their ineptitude. Psychoses are frequently give as the cause. Connie didn't seem to me to be schizophrenic, but in order to remove the diagnosis, someone had to look at the person, and no one had time or wanted to take the time to do that. At the end of the book we have a woman who broke her daughter's arm, attacked her niece's boyfriend, then killed a roomful of prominent doctors. If you were reading this in the newspapers, would you think she was sane? Piercy gives us a utopia which is formed only because people as devastated as Connie and her friends finally rose up and broke the bureaucracy in favor of life for the individual. From the outside, Connie looks pretty crazy, and it's in the interest of the bureaucracy to label her crazy. If society is to continue as it is right now, how could we ever have the time or resources to help Connie or her drug addicted prostitute niece to lead full lives? If our goals are mainly economic, survival of the fittest, best educated and politically connected it makes no sense to devote resources toward helping the poor. But our society is schizophrenic. We want our stock market to go up and up, our companies to downsize/rightsize so CEO's can make millions of dollars a year, but we also want everyone to have a chance at a worthwhile, enjoyable life. We want supply and demand, but we also want enough for everyone. We want every baby to have a chance to grow up healthy, but we also want every parent to have complete control over her own family. Piercy didn't want us to have a comfortably diverting story. I think she wants us to pick a reality, label another one schizophrenic and see what the consequences of our choices will be. Tanya Bouwman said: >>Remember when Luciente says that they have only been able to maintain contact with few people in Connie's time, and that all of those were women either in prison, or in mental hospitals? Or was she misdiagnosed, because she was a poor Chicano woman who didn't know how/couldn't speak up for herself? >> Wasn't that why Jesus associated with such a low class of people? It might be only those who have nothing to loose who are willing to accept alternate value systems and the enormous amount of social upheaval necessary to promote them. Lindy said: >>Too bad the doctors did not seem to see Connie or the others as anything other than test subjects to be improved upon. If they had made a human connection with those receiving implants against their wills, would they be able to continue with the experimentation? Scary question. Then again, was the experiment actually about mental illness, or was it actually aimed at "improving" marginal peoples, such as those in poverty, those using controlled substances, and anyone else who is "flawed?"<< I think that's the question about research into mental illness. Are we looking for ways to make marginal people more manipulative and less socially destructive or are we looking for ways to make their lives more worthwhile to themselves? It's economically advantageous to do the former, but where's the benefit to the economy of having disadvantaged people fighting for their piece of the pie? At least a full out right-wing, fundamentalist capitalist isn't schizophrenic. He knows what he wants and is willing to enforce laws to keep the country on the right track. It's the rest of us who remain confused. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:04:22 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Next BDG discussion (Grass) starts Monday on new list Comments: To: fsflist Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Next Monday we begin discussion of our May BDG selection, Sheri Tepper's _Grass_. Please note this discussion will take place on the new FeministSF-Lit list, not the original list. I am cross-posting this reminder to both lists, but the discussion itself will only be on the new list. If you haven't signed up for it yet, please do! See for information. Before then I thought it might be helpful to review a few points about the discussion. As I've said before, these are just rules we made up. If you have ideas for improvement, or even just complaints, please email me! Stay tuned for info about a fabulous updated BDG web site. The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the list, just focus the discussion. New book discussions begin monthly on the first Monday of the month, directly on the FeminstSF-lit list. Other works can of course be discussed at the same time on the list. Also, it's fine to discuss a book before the scheduled date, just remember to include spoilers in your early postings. If you want to initiate discussion about a book the group has already discussed that's OK as well, but it's polite to look through the archives first. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. It would also be helpful to include the title or initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. There's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members (that's you!) are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. Upcoming discussions: June 7 Nicola Griffith: Slow River July 5 Connie Willis: To Say Nothing of the Dog Aug 2 Octavia Butler: Wild Seed Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:53:56 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: .Woman on the Edge of Time - War Tanya Bouwman said: >>I really liked the world of the future, but felt like it was little too ideal. I was also disturbed by the almost flippant references to war, and the fact that Connie seemed to gloss over them. There was very little explanation by Luciente, et al. on what the war was and why they were fighting. Just a "them" and "us" kind of mentality. It isn't until much later when Connie travels to that "alternate" future that we get a sense of who the "enemy" is, and even later a sense of the war, but then we find out that that wasn't real, it was a "vision".<< I agree, the utopia was the most perfect one I've read. I was also concerned about the casual acceptance of the war, as was Connie I think, thus her travel to the masculinist future society. Was it only by imagining such a society that Connie could understand the utopians commitment to war? ( Wasn't that a great vision, sexism taken to it's ultimate conclusion.) But, if we accept the utopia as real, I think we also have to accept that there would be other societies that would not want it to continue. Can you imagine what Jerry Fallwell, Pat Buchanan or Ronald Reagan would think of such an egalitarian, non-sexist society? From what I've read, I believe they would feel it their duty to bring it down. To quote Grass a little prematurely: the utopians weren't "too good to do good." They loved their society. The women had already made an enormous investment in creating it by giving up their ability to birth. The men accepted the responsibility of mothering. Everyone gave up reproducing their own genetic offspring. With such a large investment, they were prepared to protect their new society. Remember the discussion of the man who had committed some crime and been rehabilitated? He was give such a chance, but should he again commit a violent crime he'd be put to death, no one was willing to give up their own freedom to become his jailer, and the society was not willing to let violent people destroy it, neither violent individuals nor violent societies. It made the utopians more real to me to show them as strong enough to protect themselves. It made the society seem less fantastic and more likely to be composed of real people. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:40:47 -0400 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: donna simone Subject: Re: Next BDG discussion (Grass) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Krauel said: Wow, I had thought the arguments for keeping it on the other list were more sound than any of my own for moving it here. Oh well, when it rains it pours they say. So as I understand it we are opening discussions of _Mission Child_ by McHugh on Monday, 4 May. As well as beginning originally scheduled BDG discussions on _Grass_ on the same day, 4 May. And of course continuing a multitude of informal book discussions that have already taken on a wondrous life of their own. I think I have died and gone to heaven? A feminist SFF list that is actually devoted to discussion about SFF books by men and women who give a damn about feminism. Big luxurious sigh. For the record, I have also finished _Ring of Swords_ by Arnason and _Half the Day is Night_ by McHugh. I will be preparing some hopefully intelligent comments/questions to spark ever more informal discussions. Sheesh, I truly hope there will be an archive for this list as well. I for sure will need one. contentedly, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:23:19 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Next BDG discussion location & archiving In-Reply-To: <006701be9035$fb9eb020$8db11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I am so envious of all the books you all are reading. Or rather of the time you have to read them - I don't even have time to read all the posts about them. I don't know if I'll have time to re-read Grass before next week. I certainly haven't had time to track down Mission Child, so those messages will go into a folder for later reading. I think it's great to see all this energy going into discussions on this new list. The way the archive works, I believe, is just to select articles with "BDG" in the subject line. Janice, is this true? So perhaps it's better to put the title in the subject line too if we want to have multiple discussions going on at once that we want to archive. I think that your reasons for moving BDG to the lit list were shared by many, Donna, and the only hesitation was when there were initial problems with the new list. All this energy made the decision clear for me and the other BDG volunteers (Petra, Janice, & Terri), though. Jennifer At 06:40 PM 04/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >Krauel said: >_Grass_.....Please note this discussion will take place on the new >FeministSF-Lit list, not the original list. I am cross-posting this >reminder to both lists, but the discussion itself will only be on the new >list. If you haven't signed up for it yet, please do! ....> > >Wow, I had thought the arguments for keeping it on the other list were >more sound than any of my own for moving it here. Oh well, when it rains >it pours they say. So as I understand it we are opening discussions of >_Mission Child_ by McHugh on Monday, 4 May. As well as beginning >originally scheduled BDG discussions on _Grass_ on the same day, 4 May. >And of course continuing a multitude of informal book discussions that >have already taken on a wondrous life of their own. I think I have died >and gone to heaven? A feminist SFF list that is actually devoted to >discussion about SFF books by men and women who give a damn about >feminism. Big luxurious sigh. > >For the record, I have also finished _Ring of Swords_ by Arnason and _Half >the Day is Night_ by McHugh. I will be preparing some hopefully >intelligent comments/questions to spark ever more informal discussions. > >Sheesh, I truly hope there will be an archive for this list as well. I for >sure will need one. > >contentedly, donna >donnaneely@earthlink.net > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:26:06 EDT Reply-To: Quiltrek@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Barbera Radford Subject: Re: "Wise Reader" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin, thank you! That's a terrific guide to follow for an analysis/discussion of reading. I especially like the point about using nonpolarized options for discussion (not feminist/not feminist, but how does this reflect feminism as I know it?) Have printed your recommendations and tucked them into LeGuin's Worlds of Exile and Illusion. Been stuck early into Rocannan's World, and can't figure out why it's so easy to put down. Leguin's work is beautiful, much like living in a water color painting. Robin's guide will provide a structure for asking the right questions. Barbera ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:07:53 EDT Reply-To: Doctorbeth@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Beth Brown Subject: Re: hyperspace travel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/22/99 7:09:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU writes: > Not long after, I read a sci-fi novel - (I have forgotten the title and > author unfortunately)...where the introduction of hyper-space travel > capabilities, led to the discovery that most humans could not cope with > hyper-space travel - it sent most of them mad, turned them into vegetables, > unless they travelled in drugged deep-sleep through hyper-space. Machine > computer logic couldn't run the hyper-space ships with accuracy either. It > turned out that only schizophrenics could navigate and pilot ships through > hyperspace...ie: they were the only ones who could "make sense" of the > hallucinatory warped realities and multidimensions of hyperspace:) Would this be "The Star Pit", a short story by Samuel Delaney? Beth ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:12:54 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: New BDG website Comments: To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As Jennifer has already indicated we have created a new BDG website as an in-between till the feministsf.org website is operational. You can find the BDG guidelines, the schedule of upcoming books, the archives of past discussions (from _Ammonite_ to _A Fisher of the Inland Sea_ !!!) (a big thank you to Janice Dawley) and the last two nomination lists at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/index.html Comments and suggestions are very welcome! As Jennifer has already pointed out from the next book on the BDG discussion will be conducted on the feministsf-lit list, while the BDG Jaran discussion will remain till finished on the feministsf list. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:14:30 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Mission Child discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Donna mentioned in her email last night/this morning that next Monday a book discussion on _Mission Child_ would start and that BDG Mission Child should be put in the subject line to distinguish it from the BDG Grass discussion (that's how I remember it, I've already deleted the email, please excuse if the above is not completely correct). Upon further reflection I found that there is quite a potential of confusion if it is done that way. The BDG is now established as a rather formal process, with a comparatively long time horizon to allow us handicapped non-US citizens to participate. If the BDG label is also used for a more spontaneous discussion of a book I at least think that, especially new list members, will be bewildered and will not keep the two things separate and latest in the next selection round we have to explain all the differences, etc. I think, it is always a good policy to label different things differently, so why not call it SBD for short-term book discussion or something like that? On another topic, I liked the guidelines on how to discuss a book which Robin Reid provided and think we should make them to a sort of list standard, For that purpose I have suggested to the other BDG volunteers to integrate them in the BDG website. So if somebody wants to add to them, do that now. It will be interesting to see if the way the discussions are conducted are influenced by a set standard. If not, one could think of somehow enforcing the list standard. For example, by sending polite (!) reminders to somebody if s/he deviates from them. However, we should keep in mind, that everybody errs once in a while. Petra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:40:19 -0400 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: Mission Child discussion In-Reply-To: <199904271014.MAA23622@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Why do we need to title it anything other than the book? The required string already is lengthy, if we add SBD and Mission Child to the string, there's no more room for specific thread thoughts within that. How about just [*FSFFU_LIT*] MisCH -(thread) as as standard model? And, I guess I'm just a coward about having authors onlist, but I'll cede that I may be the only one, and y'all have made good arguments for authorial presence, under some of the formal ideas folks have offered. I can't remember who brought up the *manner* in which the different authors have participated, but that was really helpful for thinking about where my discomfort comes from -- Thanks! Also, and this is a bit awkward, I've decided to state my gender here. I have enjoyed the benefits of having a gender neutral name on many listservs where I could tell I was being read more seriously as a male than a female, but on this list, I feel distinctly uncomfortable at being thought male, and do feel that my posts are read differently by people who think that I'm a guy than by those who know or think that I'm a woman. So for the record, I'm a woman, 31, graduate student, single, no kids, studying for my comps, and a big big fan of femSF for its political and world- building aspects, as well as for the sheer joy of reading books that challenge and agree with me at the same time, and which also do not require being read with a pen in hand! Thanks for indulging that. I have become increasingly uncomfortable about Rudy Leon PhD Student Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 fax: (707) 982-1780 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:14:24 EDT Reply-To: TMBouwman@aol.com Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: Woman On the Edge of Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wow! I didn't think I'd stir up so many comments, but I am really grateful for them. First, thank you to the several people who corrected my impressions of the meaning of schizophrenia. With the definitions provided, especially when you factor in the time of the writing and the use of it as a diagnosis at that time, it makes more sense that the doctors gave her a diagnosis of schizophrenia. (I was going to dispute that by saying that Connie didn't indicate she was discussing her "visits" to Mattapoisett with anyone, but then I remembered how they treated her when she told them Geraldo had beaten her up--how they listened only to his version and not to hers--also, the way the social worker treated her when she tried to get them to treat her for the injuries Geraldo had inflicted on her, "Where is you think you feel pain?" If that isn't one of the most condescending sentences I've ever read!!!) Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment about the diagnosis. To Joyce, who said: >>Wasn't that why Jesus associated with such a low class of people? It might be only those who have nothing to loose who are willing to accept alternate value systems and the enormous amount of social upheaval necessary to promote them. << Yes! This was part of what I wondered about. It has made me question my own perception of those I know who are "mentally ill". My husband's grandmother has "lived in her own world" for many years and now I find myself wondering sometimes if she's living in Mattapoisett with Luciente or others like her. Hmmm... Piercy really made me question not just the treatment of mental illness, but also what the definition really is. A question for those with longer memories--Did this book actually provoke social action at the time of it's writing? I know that there have been some changes in the mental health care industry, was this book one of the catalysts? Someone mentioned that the experiments were interfering with Connie's ability to contact Luciente. I found it more interesting that she was having trouble contacting Mattapoisett after they removed her electrodes, and she attributes that to her own inner mind processes. The fact that she is "at war" herself means she is no longer able to open herself up to this other world. I didn't fully understand why that would be, unless it was actually a result of the electrodes that had been implanted and the experiments the doctors had done? But Connie didn't realize that? And if it was, does that, again, imply that she was actually "crazy"? Or just that the experiment damaged the part of her brain that made her receptive to the projections of Luciente? This is a book that causes endless questions! Fasure! Thanks to all of you have participated in this discussion, it has enhanced my enjoyment of the book to be able to talk about it with someone else who has read it! Tanya (who-like Jennifer has barely had time to read the posts about the books--but manages to sneak some time for the books:)) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:16:56 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: gender clarification Rudy, What a perfect statement on the eve of the Mission Child discussion. I believe someone else did the same thing on this list, and I know someone did it on one other list I'm on. It always gives me such a good feeling to find the intelligent manner I've admired belongs to a woman. So, do you think you are treated differently on academic lists because you're assumed to be a man, or should we wait until the Mission Child discussion gets underway to explore that? Joyce