From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thu Jul 12 20:23:43 2001 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:39:56 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UIC (1.8d)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0007B" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:53:37 +0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: sc Subject: human-shaping and terraforming Comments: To: ffsf-lit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01BFEAB0.EBBDEE60" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BFEAB0.EBBDEE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As the list's a bit quiet at the moment I'll de-lurk with some questions = that came to mind after I'd read both Alison Sinclair's _Blueheart_ and = Joan Slonczewski's _The Children Star_ recently. Neither raise = particularly feminist issues, but both throw up a lot of questions about = the relationship between humans and their planet. Both books concern = groups of humans who have been altered by various means including = genetic manipulation and the employment of nano-tech, to live on worlds = that would not otherwise be viable for them - in one case more than the = other. They then come under threat from the proposed terraforming of = their worlds. There are a lot of questions thrown up in these two books, which I won't = delve into in detail because of possible 'spoilers', but one more = general thing that puzzles me is why the goverments/organisations who = adapt these people would go to all that trouble and expense in the first = place? It seems that they would be just storing up trouble for the = future if they decide to terraform and there's an 'adaptive' population = to deal with. If it's as pioneers, to research a planet's existing = habitats, then non-sentient machines are the obvious answer. If the = planet is so hostile that unaltered humans could not live there at all, = then I suspect that the whole thing would be terraformed without a = second thought, anyway. _Blueheart_ is somewhat reminiscent of Slonczewski's _A Door into Ocean_ = , but without the feminist/pacifist stance. It's the second of = Sinclair's books I've read, the other being _Cavalcade_ , which is also = in a way about how humans react with a strange new environment. Sorry for rambling, but these 2 books have certainly got me thinking. If = anyone wants to throw their twopenn'orth in please do! Cheers SC ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BFEAB0.EBBDEE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As the list's a bit quiet at the moment I'll de-lurk = with some=20 questions that came to mind after I'd read both Alison Sinclair's = _Blueheart_=20 and Joan Slonczewski's _The Children Star_ recently. Neither raise = particularly=20 feminist issues, but both throw up a lot of questions about the = relationship=20 between humans and their planet. Both books concern groups of humans who = have=20 been altered by various means including genetic manipulation and the = employment=20 of nano-tech, to live on worlds that would not otherwise be viable for = them - in=20 one case more than the other. They then come under threat from the = proposed=20 terraforming of their worlds.

There are a lot of questions thrown up in these two = books,=20 which I won't delve into in detail because of possible 'spoilers', = but one=20 more general thing that puzzles me is why the goverments/organisations = who adapt=20 these people would go to all that trouble and expense in the first = place? It=20 seems that they would be just storing up trouble for the future if = they=20 decide to terraform and there's an 'adaptive' population to deal with. = If it's=20 as pioneers, to research a planet's existing habitats, then non-sentient = machines are the obvious answer. If the planet is so hostile that = unaltered=20 humans could not live there at all, then I suspect that the whole thing = would be=20 terraformed without a second thought, anyway.

_Blueheart_ is somewhat reminiscent of Slonczewski's = _A Door=20 into Ocean_ , but without the feminist/pacifist stance. It's the second = of=20 Sinclair's books I've read, the other being _Cavalcade_ , which is also = in a way=20 about how humans react with a strange new environment.

Sorry for rambling, but these 2 books = have=20 certainly got me thinking. If anyone wants to throw their twopenn'orth = in please=20 do!

Cheers

------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BFEAB0.EBBDEE60-- ------------------------------------------------------ This is the FEMINISTSF-LIT listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF-LIT Contact FEMINISTSF-LIT-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:30:48 -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: human-shaping and terraforming Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > There are a lot of questions thrown up in these two books, which > I won't delve into in detail because of possible 'spoilers', but > one more general thing that puzzles me is why the goverments/organisations > who adapt these people would go to all that trouble and expense in > the first place? It seems that they would be just storing up trouble > for the future if they decide to terraform and there's an 'adaptive' > population to deal with. If it's as pioneers, to research a planet's > existing habitats, then non-sentient machines are the obvious > answer. If the planet is so hostile that unaltered humans could > not live there at all, then I suspect that the whole thing would > be terraformed without a second thought, anyway. It depends on the relative costs involved, I suppose. Genetic manipulation will probably be far, far cheaper (in terms of just money, anyway) than terraforming. If, once you've got people there, the reasons for colonizing might change (another world becomes uninhabitable, perhaps, and needs to be evacuated; something of unimaginable worth is found on or under the surface of the planet; the planet happens to be at the perfect point to take advantage of a new and more efficient star travel; whatever) and the cost and desire for terraforming would make terraforming much more attractive. Backing off to a distance, one might draw parallels to how human groups have treated each other over time--I think we'd be able to find examples of one group finding modifications (of behavior, looks, etc.) convenient at one point, and later inconvenient. Say, with a little stretch, women in the factories in WWII. I don't think it requires any suspension of disbelief to accept that governments or corporations would do something like what you describe. For a number of different reasons--not just the one above... An interesting twist might be for such a genetically modified colony to grow to the point where they consider terraforming Earth (or another Earth-like planet) to meet their needs. Has anyone seen such a twist. > Sorry for rambling, but these 2 books have certainly got me thinking. > If anyone wants to throw their twopenn'orth in please do! That's what the list is for! :-) BTW, on another tangent, Greg Bear's _Queen of Angels_ has a genetically modified cop as a protagonist. She has chosen the modification and throughout the book she is learning to deal with the changes. -allen ------------------------------------------------------ This is the FEMINISTSF-LIT listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF-LIT Contact FEMINISTSF-LIT-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:35:08 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Margaret McBride Subject: gilda and kissing the witch MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm feeling somewhat guilty for not responding to the questions recently (although I'm not alone in that the list has been very quiet). Does that say something about busy lives when we feel guilty about something that is supposed to be for fun and for ourselves? Anyway, I did enjoy both books. I'm not much into vampire fiction but I liked the layerings added to this one by having the main character be an ex-slave. I read lots of historical novels when I was a teen and thought this one did very well with the historical elements. I thought you might be interested to know that a new Gilda story appears in the new book on African-Am. sf and fantasy called Dark Matter edited by Sheree Thomas. The story is called "Chicago 1927" and has some interesting comment on jazz and the growing business of black city folks. I really enjoyed the revisionist fairy tales in Kissing the Witch. Her style is deceptively simple--as is appropriate to her subject matter. This book does what I want out of good sf and fantasy--makes me see life from a different framework, breaks through cultural walls, etc. The way we are told to look at our lives is not the only way. Each connection and layering she does is particularly fun. I found myself wondering/anticipating how she was going to connect a character and to what story in the next one. ------------------------------------------------------ This is the FEMINISTSF-LIT listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF-LIT Contact FEMINISTSF-LIT-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU if there are problems. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:32:22 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "E. W. Bennefeld" Subject: Re: gilda and kissing the witch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We're still recovering from last month's flooding, here in Fargo, ND (19th June). I had to order the book for July, and it hasn't arrived, yet. I am hopeful that it will be here in time for me to read it over the weekend. Liz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Margaret McBride" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 12:35 PM Subject: [*FSF-L*] gilda and kissing the witch > I'm feeling somewhat guilty for not responding to the questions recently > (although I'm not alone in that the list has been very quiet). Does that > say something about busy lives when we feel guilty about something that is > supposed to be for fun and for ourselves? > -- E. W. Bennefeld @ SFF.NET Freelance Writer and Editor Since 1984 http://www.PatchworkProse.com/ ------------------------------------------------------ This is the FEMINISTSF-LIT listserve, intended only for discussion of feminism and Speculative Fiction. To unsubscribe from this listserve, send a message to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU and in the body of the message say: unsubscribe FEMINISTSF-LIT Contact FEMINISTSF-LIT-request@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU if there are problems.