From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thu Jul 12 20:25:50 2001 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:40:03 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UIC (1.8d)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0011A" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:14:54 EST Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Maire Shanahan Subject: Singer from the Sea MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, I have just joined this BDG- can't believe it took me so long to find it as fem-sf is my obsession. I am presently reading Singer from the Sea. I live in Australia, and have not previously seen much if any of Tepper's work in stores. With the Release of S.f.t.S. and others ie the Awakeners, I now see her work has a much wider distribution here. S.f.t.S. is the first of Tepper's books I have read,. and I am absolutely loving it. I halfway through at present, and the suspense as to the mysterious longevity of the male aristocrats is killing me. I didn't expect the book to be so good, or to enjoy it so much. I recently read Black Wine ,and really enjoyed that also. I am beginning to notice a trend- I always feel that fem.sf is of a higher standard than the majority of other sf. Is it just my bias? Is it that people/ writers who think deeply enough about things to be writing fem.sf, therefore think deeply enough to write well? Or is it the syndrome I read of in some review I read about a short story (not fem sf.) The story was about a phenomenon where the earth moved into some dimension (or something) which resulted in everyone's intelligence being hugely increased. The critic remarked, quite perceptively and humorously, that it is almost impossible for an author to write of such a phenomenon- without having everyone (in the story) come to share the philosophy and views of the author, as a result of having their intelligence increased. So perhaps, the fact that I think that fem sf is always of a very high standard, and intelligently written etc, has something to do with me being a feminist. Maire Ps- What about Doris Lessing- I don't see her name anywhere, but surely some of her work is fem.sf? ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 08:53:29 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jane Fletcher Subject: [BDG} Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As nominator I thought I^Òd start the discussion off with some general impressions of the book. The thing I like most about ^ÑAsh^Ò is that I don^Òt quite know how to classify what I^Òm reading. My best attempt so far would be that it is fantasy, using the trappings of alternate history to provide richness of background, written in the style of a modern war novel to give a punch to the writing - however my opinion may well change. This unpredictability is, for me, pretty much a trade mark of Mary Gentle^Òs work. I feel that anything could happen. I started out reading the book as alternate history ^Ö until the golem turned up. By the time I got to the perpetual twilight it was much more like fantasy. Except, if it was a pure fantasy, there would have to be a map at the front showing where the various towns were, and a situation like the Wars of the Roses could not be used so casually for incidental background. I suspect that the next few fantasy novels I read are going to seem pathetically two-dimensional. However the weight of detail (countries, people, artefacts and armour) would be too much to throw in, if it were all new to the reader. I am mesmerised by the character of Ash. In particular I can^Òt think of any other hero (and definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled ^Ö Gentle goes to great length to show her as a mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the possible exception of her followers). With any other writer I would assume that, despite initial faltering, the hero would end up on the side of ^ÑGood^Ò . However I don^Òt think Gentle is into depicting the battle of good versus evil, rather she presents groups with different interests and perspectives. Ash is motivated by her own self interest. So far I am on her side, but it might change. As with the plot, I don^Òt know where Ash herself is going, and it is quite possible that by the end I will have ceased to like her. At this point in the story I have a lot of unanswered questions, largely concerned with Ash^Òs past. I am hoping (though I guess it isn^Òt certain) that they will be answered by the end of the complete book. My dislikes are pretty much confined to the use of present tense. I have an almost pathological hated of the form, however since the story only strays into it for the occasional sentence I can live with it. The amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer hasn^Òt worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many other reviewers seem to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what I would expect reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I. Is it that other reviewers are reacting to the depiction of real violence in a knights-in-armour setting or have I become desensitised by watching too much news on television? As a final, incidental point, one of my favourite moments is Ash getting ready to meet Duke Charles ^Ö it comes from such an unexpected angle that it was only when I was half way through the next page I realised I^Òd just read a version of the scene showing a young woman preparing for an important event by being totally preoccupied by her clothes. Jane ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 11:19:59 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jane Fletcher Subject: [BDG] Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C047E3.7FABFCE0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C047E3.7FABFCE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As nominator I thought I^Òd start the discussion off with some general impressions of the book. The thing I like most about ^ÑAsh^Ò is that I don^Òt quite know how to classify what I^Òm reading. My best attempt so far would be that it is fantasy, using the trappings of alternate history to provide richness of background, written in the style of a modern war novel to give a punch to the writing - however my opinion may well change. This unpredictability is, for me, pretty much a trade mark of Mary Gentle^Òs work. I feel that anything could happen. I started out reading the book as alternate history ^Ö until the golem turned up. By the time I got to the perpetual twilight it was much more like fantasy. Except, if it was a pure fantasy, there would have to be a map at the front showing where the various towns were, and a situation like the Wars of the Roses could not be used so casually for incidental background. I suspect that the next few fantasy novels I read are going to seem pathetically two-dimensional. However the weight of detail (countries, people, artefacts and armour) would be too much to throw in, if it were all new to the reader. I am mesmerised by the character of Ash. In particular I can^Òt think of any other hero (and definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled ^Ö Gentle goes to great length to show her as a mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the possible exception of her followers). With any other writer I would assume that, despite initial faltering, the hero would end up on the side of ^ÑGood^Ò . However I don^Òt think Gentle is into depicting the battle of good versus evil, rather she presents groups with different interests and perspectives. Ash is motivated by her own self interest. So far I am on her side, but it might change. As with the plot, I don^Òt know where Ash herself is going, and it is quite possible that by the end I will have ceased to like her. At this point in the story I have a lot of unanswered questions, largely concerned with Ash^Òs past. I am hoping (though I guess it isn^Òt certain) that they will be answered by the end of the complete book. My dislikes are pretty much confined to the use of present tense. I have an almost pathological hated of the form, however since the story only strays into it for the occasional sentence I can live with it. The amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer hasn^Òt worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many other reviewers seem to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what I would expect reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I. Is it that other reviewers are reacting to the depiction of real violence in a knights-in-armour setting or have I become desensitised by watching too much news on television? As a final, incidental point, one of my favourite moments is Ash getting ready to meet Duke Charles ^Ö it comes from such an unexpected angle that it was only when I was half way through the next page I realised I^Òd just read a version of the scene showing a young woman preparing for an important event by being totally preoccupied by her clothes. Jane ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C047E3.7FABFCE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some = general
impressions of the book.

The thing I like most about=20 ‘Ash’ is that I don’t quite know how to = classify
what=20 I’m reading. My best attempt so far would be that it is fantasy,=20 using
the trappings of alternate history to provide richness of=20 background,
written in the style of a modern war novel to give a = punch to the=20 writing -
however my opinion may well change. This unpredictability = is, for=20 me, pretty
much a trade mark of Mary Gentle’s work. I feel that = anything could happen.

I started out reading the book as = alternate=20 history – until the golem turned
up. By the time I got to the = perpetual=20 twilight it was much more like
fantasy. Except, if it was a pure = fantasy,=20 there would have to be a map at
the front showing where the various = towns=20 were, and a situation like the
Wars of the Roses could not be used so = casually for incidental background. I
suspect that the next few = fantasy=20 novels I read are going to seem
pathetically two-dimensional. However = the=20 weight of detail (countries,
people, artefacts and armour) would be = too much=20 to throw in, if it were all
new to the reader.

I am mesmerised = by the=20 character of Ash. In particular I can’t think of any
other hero = (and=20 definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so
charismatic = while being=20 so unprincipled – Gentle goes to great length to
show her as a=20 mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the
possible = exception of=20 her followers). With any other writer I would assume
that, despite = initial=20 faltering, the hero would end up on the side of ‘Good’
. = However=20 I don’t think Gentle is into depicting the battle of good = versus
evil,=20 rather she presents groups with different interests and = perspectives.
Ash is=20 motivated by her own self interest. So far I am on her side, but = it
might=20 change. As with the plot, I don’t know where Ash herself is going, = and
it is quite possible that by the end I will have ceased to like=20 her.

At this point in the story I have a lot of unanswered = questions,=20 largely
concerned with Ash’s past. I am hoping (though I guess = it=20 isn’t certain)
that they will be answered by the end of the = complete=20 book.

My dislikes are pretty much confined to the use of present = tense. I=20 have an
almost pathological hated of the form, however since the = story only=20 strays
into it for the occasional sentence I can live with = it.

The=20 amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer=20 hasn’t
worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many = other=20 reviewers seem
to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what = I would=20 expect
reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I. Is it = that=20 other
reviewers are reacting to the depiction of real violence in=20 a
knights-in-armour setting or have I become desensitised by watching = too=20 much
news on television?

As a final, incidental point, one of = my=20 favourite moments is Ash getting
ready to meet Duke Charles – = it comes=20 from such an unexpected angle that it
was only when I was half way = through=20 the next page I realised I’d just read
a version of the scene = showing a=20 young woman preparing for an important
event by being totally = preoccupied by=20 her clothes.



Jane



------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C047E3.7FABFCE0-- ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 12:53:46 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: This is only a test message. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sorry, this is a test to see whether the listserv works. Petra ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 00:58:21 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sharon Anderson Subject: What Makes It Feminist? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, haul out your soapboxes, I am Bringing Up That Question again. I am bringing it up because of Maire's question about Doris Lessing, which is the same one recently raised by my roommate. And I am bringing it up in anticipation of our discussion of Ash, which is due to start...any time now. When I started the Ash book, I was very frustrated because Ash is so clearly the queen bee, I-am-an-exception type, who can deal with women serving in the ranks, but only under rigidly defined contexts. She is extremely class conscious -- not unexpected in a fifteenth (sixteenth?) century European. But she doesn't grow out of this into a new understanding. I was ready to throw the book across the room, until my roommate asked if the author was using the character as a negative model, in which case the book might be feminist after all. To be honest, though, it's a question I can't answer. I didn't like Ash well enough to read the 3 sequels in order to find out. I certainly couldn't tell by the end of book #1. And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I don't care how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Can a book have a male as the main character, and still be feminist? I am willing to admit that the main character can be male and still enjoyable, but male and feminist? To take it one step further, trying to make a point by using a male character as the hero or martyr or martyred hero, is a strategy that plainly sucks. Just because you use men as the example of how horrible a condition is (usually for women) does not, in my sight, make it feminist. Just turning it on its ear is not enough to qualify. I am currently reading "Wicked," which I did not expect to like because it is written by a man. I do like it. Very much. In my experience, Samuel Delaney and John Varley and (okay, okay, you can throw tomatoes now) Roger Zelazney are the only authors with a Y chromosome whose books I can actually finish. What a shock to discover I have to add another to the list. So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction feminist? ---s ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 10:40:11 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dale Marshall Subject: Re: Singer from the Sea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" On 11/5/00 1:14 AM, Maire Shanahan wrote: >I am presently reading Singer from the Sea. I live in Australia, and have not >previously seen much if any of Tepper's work in stores. I've been a fan of Tepper's work for a long time, and while some of it has been disappointing, she's written some wonderful books. _Grass_, _Raising the Stones_, and _Beauty_ are very strong works, imo, as is _The Gate to Women's Country_. _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ I felt to be something of a failure, but I understood why she tried to get the message out to a wider audience than just those of us who read sf (altho I don't think the book managed to attract much attention). There are a couple of her books I've read and not wanted to keep copies of (_A Plague of Angels_ is one) but I think she's produced a wonderfully satisfactory body of work. I see she has a new one due out in a few days. You have great stuff to look forward to! >I am beginning to notice a trend- I always feel that fem.sf is of a higher >standard than the majority of other sf. Is it just my bias? Is it that >people/ writers who think deeply enough about things to be writing fem.sf, >therefore think deeply enough to write well? It may be that those writers who have a feminist viewpoint care more about character development and interaction than the hardware/theoretical science that dominates some sf, and you may prefer well-rounded characters to cardboard cutouts who'll advance the plot. I love Asimov's work, but his characters don't often have much depth to them -- in fact, I think the most interesting, many-layered personalities belong to his robots. The *people* part of many sf tales -- how the situation affects the characters internally, what choices they agonize over and compromises they make -- seems to be more dominant in authors whose work includes women as equally interesting people. >So perhaps, the fact that I think that fem sf is always of a very high >standard, and intelligently written etc, has something to do with me being a >feminist. Perhaps you being a feminist has something to do with you being intelligent. ;-) Dasha ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 11:17:41 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dale Marshall Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" On 11/6/00 3:58 AM, Sharon Anderson wrote: >And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I >don't care how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Can > a book have a male as the main character, and still be feminist? Interesting question. I found _The Sparrow_ disturbing and ugly, and it surprised me that it was a book well-received by many who *don't* read sf. I hadn't considered whether it was feminist -- it didn't occur to me to think of it in that way. I would think it possible to have a male protagonist and write a feminist book, if a lot of the book deals with his relationships (professional, personal, whatever) with females and the females are strong, multi-faceted characters. >So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction >feminist? If feminism is the radical notion that women are people, can a feminist work simply be one in which the females have as much depth and range as the male characters? I've just finished 2 of Vernor Vinge's books, _A Fire Upon the Deep_ and _A Deepness in the Sky_, and the strength and diversity of the female characters would make me include him as a feminist sf writer. John Varley's works, in which gender is something one can often change at will, are interesting, but I think of him as more traditional in his story-telling, for all the unusual sexual content. What about David Weber's opus, the Honor Harrington series (beginning with _On Basilisk Station_ and continuing through numerous volumes)? I'd put it on a list of feminist sf, altho there's a lot more technical info and descriptions of hardware and warfare than most women readers care about. The main character *is* a female, but it's not her sex but the sympathy which Weber brings to her experiences (often enough a result of sexism on the part of others, sometimes personal, sometimes society-wide) which moves it beyond just a female super-hero tale to a thought-provoking examination of prejudice and common wisdom. It's quite interesting to read about a character for a dozen or more pages before discovering that the Sergeant or the Admiral is female -- old stereotypes die hard. Does feminist sf simply include aspects of human drama as they affect females as fully as it covers those which affect males, or must it be dominated by the female experience? Dasha ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 11:08:44 -0600 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? In-Reply-To: <3A0672AC.DAFBACC9@cdsnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >Okay, haul out your soapboxes, I am Bringing Up That Question again. > So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction > feminist? > >---s I'm sure we've been here before -- and you might want to check out archived postings just to see what went down, but I'm always willing to come back to the question because it's a major one for me (in a year or two I expect to begin on a Book about this very issue!) However, I want to expand the question for discussion. The question you ask rests on the assumption that the "feminism" is all to be found in the text, the "essential elements." This assumption is natural given the way that much literature is taught in schools (I suppose I should admit that I teach literature at a university! be warned!!), but there is another approach to literature that is gaining more and more ground these days. The approach is called reader response theory, and argues that different readers, based on their background, experiences, values, etc., can construct different "meanings" for the same text, or book. The easiest explanation of this issue can be found in the way two people react so very differently to the same text. For example, I HATED HATED HATED "Wicked" -- so much so that I gave the book away immediately upon finishing it. My reasons have more to do with me, than with the text. While some people (often students in my Introduction to Literature class) think that this theory means they can say anything they want, it's not that simple. Peter Elbow, an early proponent if not the creator of this theory, argues that RANGES of meanings are possible, and what ideally should happen in a class is the formation of a reading community. And reader response actually makes it harder to write literary analysis since, if you the writer cannot assume that your readers share your background and values, etc., you have to "defend" your reading by integrating information about yourself into the analysis. All a fancy and longwinded way of saying that if a reader can find a sense of empowerment and calls that sense feminist in, say, Anne McCaffrey's fictions, which I (today, at the age of 45) do not consider at all feminist (but when I was 14, living in Idaho, when most sf was published by men did find fascinating and read with great devotion), then the more power to her! Or to him! And as a feminist who does not believe that one naturally has to be a "woman" to be a feminist (and that all men naturally must be oppressors), I believe that men can be feminists (just as I, a fourth-generation Welsh American, can teach African-American and Native-American literature though I am not a member of either of those ethnic groups), and that men can write stories with feminist themes. While my personal reading and much of my professional reading is heavily tilted toward women writers (of multiple ethnicities), I do enjoy (and fine feminist elements in) the works of Charles de Lint and David Brin (and could probably come up with a few more if I check my bookshelves). As an example of how our ideas of gender can confuse our readings, I would refer you to the debates over the fiction of James Tiptree, Jr. (the pseudonym of Alice Sheldon), and the heated arguments over whether or not his/her fiction was "feminist" (the reading often depended upon the reader's perception of the writer's gender, not any essential element of the text). And the great shock in the sf community when Sheldon's "true" gender was revealed. I LOVE everything Joanna Russ has ever written -- but many younger feminists I talk to do not respond at all positively to the work (especially THE FEMALE MAN); they complain about the anger in that text and their feeling that such an emotion is not appropriate. For me, it's entirely appropriate, but then I remember (vaguely) the fifties and grew up in IDAHO during the sixties. That anger is, for me, entirely appropriate, and there's so much more in the work. However, too narrow a definition of feminist is a problem as well as too broad a one. Do we want to restrict "feminist" as a label to be applied only to those sf writers who also, for example, call THEMSELVES feminists, who write feminist theory, who engage in feminist activism? Do we want to exclude ANY work that has heterosexuality as the "norm" from the category of feminist works (some feminists would say yes; I was in graduate school with several of them)? What about the issue of womanism, a term coined by Alice Walker, to reflect her sense that the white feminists of the seventies and perhaps the eighties too narrowly defined feminism (as, for example, being about the right to an abortion rather than the broader issue of access to health care for poor and minority women)? Do we really want to set up an ideological litmus test, or would it be more interesting (my preference) to talk about individual works that we see as feminist in relation to ourselves, and why? The first is much easier (and leads, of course, to division and discord), the second is much harder and thus, to my mind, infinitely more interesting. Because the other big question that your single question includes is: how does one define "feminist"? And all the books I have sitting in my office show how complicated THAT question is.... Robin ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 08:50:01 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: New Tepper MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies if this is a repost. The Fresco by Sheri Tepper Tepper's latest compliments real-life as we face our regular four-year elections and political issues. In The Fresco, humanity makes alien contact and a couple of representatives come to Earth to help us get in shape for joining civilization on a cosmic scale. Which includes taking away Jerusalem for a while, but leaving a big hole in the ground (all the people are safely displaced) with a big note which basically says, "it's a holy city and the way you're behaving, you don't deserve it!" Not to mention the "ugly plague" that strikes Pakistan and other countries -- the more a woman is suppressed and cowed by the men in her life, the more hideous she appears to him and his supporters; the more freedom she is allowed, the more she regains her original appearance... Etc. I love Tepper's books because they make such nice fantasies. However, I get depressed because the idea of alien intervention into destructive abhorrent human nature is just a fantasy, and I get pessimistic about our ability to improve ourselves. Avon hardcover, $24.00. -- MeH -- ******************************************************************* Mysterious Galaxy Books Local Phone: 858.268.4747 7051 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 302 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com General Email: mgbooks@mystgalaxy.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. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:25:01 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Jennifer R. J." Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20001106094934.0096cd00@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu > Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:08 AM 11/6/00 -0600, you wrote: >The question you ask rests on the assumption that the "feminism" is all to >be found in the text, the "essential elements." This assumption is natural >given the way that much literature is taught in schools (I suppose I should >admit that I teach literature at a university! be warned!!), but there is >another approach to literature that is gaining more and more ground these >days. > >The approach is called reader response theory, and argues that different >readers, based on their background, experiences, values, etc., can >construct different "meanings" for the same text, or book. The easiest >explanation of this issue can be found in the way two people react so very >differently to the same text. For example, I HATED HATED HATED "Wicked" -- >so much so that I gave the book away immediately upon finishing it. My >reasons have more to do with me, than with the text. > >While some people (often students in my Introduction to Literature class) >think that this theory means they can say anything they want, it's not that >simple. Peter Elbow, an early proponent if not the creator of this theory, >argues that RANGES of meanings are possible, and what ideally should happen >in a class is the formation of a reading community. First off, I should explain something. I'm 26, but I will only be a junior in college next spring due to major medical problems and not knowing there were alternative colleges until recently. Therefore, I am a bit different than the "traditional student." I really like this new approach. I believe my favorite college lit professor used this technique and my non-favorites did not use it. In most of my lit classes, we were allowed to contribute our own feelings about what the book meant to US. In a few, we were given what the meaning was and if we disagreed, too bad. To me, that approach seemed very much like middle school and high school. I remember my ninth grade teacher telling us all about the Jesus imagery in The Old Man and the Sea and she made this huge point that we HAD to see it that way. Yes, it may have been Jesus-like, but did Hemingway really mean it to be that way? Or could it have possibly been unintentional, but came from his religious subconsciousness. I'm not sure if I'm making sense here. I often wonder how other writers go about putting parts of themselves into their work; is it intentional or does it just sort of appear? Anyway, my favorite lit professor mentioned the Christ imagery, but she said we didn't HAVE to see it that way. In contrast, I took a combined women's studies/ lit class at another college and the professor told us what to get out of Rubyfruit Jungle. I agreed that we needed to know what the lesbian "climate" was like at the time the book was written, but she didn't allow us to see that book at all from our teen to 20-something perspective. Young women are going to perceive that book a lot differently than our 50-ish professor did, IMO. >And reader response actually makes it harder to write literary analysis >since, if you the writer cannot assume that your readers share your >background and values, etc., you have to "defend" your reading by >integrating information about yourself into the analysis. That's a good point. >All a fancy and longwinded way of saying that if a reader can find a sense >of empowerment and calls that sense feminist in, say, Anne McCaffrey's >fictions, which I (today, at the age of 45) do not consider at all feminist >(but when I was 14, living in Idaho, when most sf was published by men did >find fascinating and read with great devotion), then the more power to >her! Or to him! Another great point. This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my own mentioning of McCaffrey when I first joined. >And as a feminist who does not believe that one naturally has to be a >"woman" to be a feminist (and that all men naturally must be oppressors), I >believe that men can be feminists (just as I, a fourth-generation Welsh >American, can teach African-American and Native-American literature though >I am not a member of either of those ethnic groups), and that men can write >stories with feminist themes. While my personal reading and much of my >professional reading is heavily tilted toward women writers (of multiple >ethnicities), I do enjoy (and fine feminist elements in) the works of >Charles de Lint and David Brin (and could probably come up with a few more >if I check my bookshelves). I agree, although I haven't found too many feminist male SF authors, which could be one reason why I don't read SF books by men much. I do have de Lint and Brin on my to-read list, and now they will get stars for being something more female positive. I think one reason I joined this list was to get ideas of what MALE authors might be good to read. I feel sort of sexist reading mostly women, but most of the male authors I've read don't resonate with me- except Clive Barker, Frank Herbert, and a few others. I sometimes feel weird discussing SF in forums that aren't strictly about feminist SF or SF by female authors. >As an example of how our ideas of gender can confuse our readings, I would >refer you to the debates over the fiction of James Tiptree, Jr. (the >pseudonym of Alice Sheldon), and the heated arguments over whether or not >his/her fiction was "feminist" (the reading often depended upon the >reader's perception of the writer's gender, not any essential element of >the text). And the great shock in the sf community when Sheldon's "true" >gender was revealed. How long was Tiptree/ Sheldon writing before HER gender was revealed? I remember reading something about Robert Silverberg saying how male Tiptree's writing was- before Silverberg knew he was actually a she! It gave me a good laugh. Oddly enough though, I love most of the Silverberg short stories I've written. I wouldn't consider him a "man's man." >I LOVE everything Joanna Russ has ever written -- but many younger >feminists I talk to do not respond at all positively to the work >(especially THE FEMALE MAN); they complain about the anger in that text and >their feeling that such an emotion is not appropriate. For me, it's >entirely appropriate, but then I remember (vaguely) the fifties and grew up >in IDAHO during the sixties. That anger is, for me, entirely appropriate, >and there's so much more in the work. I will have to read Russ and see what I think. Being 26, I might be one of those who doesn't totally understand the anger, but I AM angry about the situation women are still in and I have somewhat of a grasp of the history of the women's movement (although I can't totally know what it was like because I wasn't there!). >However, too narrow a definition of feminist is a problem as well as too >broad a one. Do we want to restrict "feminist" as a label to be applied >only to those sf writers who also, for example, call THEMSELVES feminists, >who write feminist theory, who engage in feminist activism? Do we want to >exclude ANY work that has heterosexuality as the "norm" from the category >of feminist works (some feminists would say yes; I was in graduate school >with several of them)? What about the issue of womanism, a term coined by >Alice Walker, to reflect her sense that the white feminists of the >seventies and perhaps the eighties too narrowly defined feminism (as, for >example, being about the right to an abortion rather than the broader issue >of access to health care for poor and minority women)? Do we really want >to set up an ideological litmus test, or would it be more interesting (my >preference) to talk about individual works that we see as feminist in >relation to ourselves, and why? The first is much easier (and leads, of >course, to division and discord), the second is much harder and thus, to my >mind, infinitely more interesting. Great points! I've been having a sort of feminist crisis a bit lately. A friend of mine is an ardent feminist and we totally agree on some issues and totally disagree on other issues. I sometimes wonder if she's the "real" feminist, or am I? Then I realize that we are both separate individuals and we will differ on some issues, but we are both feminists. Then there's the fact the "feminist" seems to be a dirty word to a lot of younger women, but they are by definition feminists. They have this bad view of feminism and see it as all about burning bras and not shaving our legs or something. It's like they need a new word for feminism or something to define themselves as a new generation with some new ideas of what it means to be strong women. >Because the other big question that your single question includes is: how >does one define "feminist"? >And all the books I have sitting in my office show how complicated THAT >question is.... >Robin I've been thinking a lot of Lois McMaster Bujold as this discussion has been unfolding. Might some people consider her to not be a feminist because her main character in the Vorkosigan series is male? But then what about Miles' mother Cordelia being the main character in two of the books? What of all of the feminist concepts I've seen in the books I've read so far? Jennifer ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 11:37:56 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Kristina Solheim Subject: Re: Singer from the Sea In-Reply-To: <200011061540.JAA45330@listserv.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:40 AM 11/6/2000 -0500, you wrote: >There are a couple of >her books I've read and not wanted to keep copies of (_A Plague of >Angels_ is one) but I think she's produced a wonderfully satisfactory >body of work. I see she has a new one due out in a few days. You have >great stuff to look forward to! Thanks for passing on the word that she has a new one coming out! I'm very happy to see that. Just wanted to plug _A Plague of Angels_ *wink*.... When I first discovered the wonderful world of feminist science fiction, it was by reading _APoA_. It was the first time that I saw fantasy as a metaphor for discussion of social issues and I was overwhelmingly impressed by her use of archetype and story, combining fantasy and science fiction in a way that I wanted to emulate. I loved it and keep a hardcover copy of that book on the shelf where I have most of my writer reference books to remind me where my passion comes from. "1st Prize for the Best Chase Scene" goes to _Grass_ (IMHO). :) ciao! Kristina ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 17:22:40 -0600 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001106125209.00b98d80@mail.superior.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > In contrast, I took a >combined women's studies/ lit class at another college and the professor >told us what to get out of Rubyfruit Jungle. I agreed that we needed to >know what the lesbian "climate" was like at the time the book was written, >but she didn't allow us to see that book at all from our teen to >20-something perspective. Young women are going to perceive that book a >lot differently than our 50-ish professor did, IMO. This sort of thing has been the basis for a lot of complaints about women's studies classes (though to be fair it happens just as much in a lot of the other humanities courses, specifically in "regular" literature classes!)--the imposition of a specific ideology or position which is defined as "real" feminist with everyting else being put down. One of my major favorites, bell hooks, argues for shifting the term from "the feminist movement" as a singular term to feminist movement or even feminist movements, recognizing the wide variety of activities that have to come under the term! So the question is, are we moving or not, rather than are we feminist or not? > Another great point. This is exactly what I was trying to get at in >my own mentioning of McCaffrey when I first joined. I was thinking of that discussion when I made this comparison! > How long was Tiptree/ Sheldon writing before HER gender was >revealed? I remember reading something about Robert Silverberg saying how >male Tiptree's writing was- before Silverberg knew he was actually a >she! It gave me a good laugh. Oddly enough though, I love most of the >Silverberg short stories I've written. I wouldn't consider him a "man's man." I'd have to do some research ;I don't really recall. The SIlverberg reference you mention is in his written introduction to a collection of short stories in which he claims there's something about her writing which is "ineluctably masculine" and then her first novel, UP THE WALLS OF THE WORLD (totally MUST READ) came out with a picture of a woman in her fifties in it. Linguistic studies of various texts have shown that, in fact, people cannot always tell whether the writer is male or female, though many think one can! > I will have to read Russ and see what I think. Being 26, I might be >one of those who doesn't totally understand the anger, but I AM angry about >the situation women are still in and I have somewhat of a grasp of the >history of the women's movement (although I can't totally know what it was >like because I wasn't there!). Where? That's one of the big issues. Lots of stuff went on in New York and Los Angeles and other big urban areas during that time; I was alive then, but in Idaho. But even the people who were there only know one part -- the debate around/about "race" and sexuality show that difference. Have you read any other stuff by Brown than RUBYFRUIT JUNGLE? She was there, she writes about it a lot, both in fiction and in her recent autobiography, and she's got a great take on things (though I don't always agree with her, of course). > Then there's the fact the "feminist" seems to be a dirty word >to a lot of younger women, but they are by definition feminists. They have >this bad view of feminism and see it as all about burning bras and not >shaving our legs or something. It's like they need a new word for feminism >or something to define themselves as a new generation with some new ideas >of what it means to be strong women. I've been noticing this more and more -- Susan Faludi's BACKLASH traces the sort of media assault during the eighties that helped made "feminist" into what I call, "The OTher F-word," the one you still get punished for saying in public. Feminist have been debating the need for a new word, or ways to reclaim the other one -- the growth of the grrrrrl power movement is an interesting example of a feminism generated by the participants. Me, I keep using feminist all over the place because I refuse to give up on it. And that's something when you're deep in the heart of Texas (well, OK I'm in the Northeast Corner, but it sounds so good). > I've been thinking a lot of Lois McMaster Bujold as this discussion >has been unfolding. Might some people consider her to not be a feminist >because her main character in the Vorkosigan series is male? But then what >about Miles' mother Cordelia being the main character in two of the >books? What of all of the feminist concepts I've seen in the books I've >read so far? Oh, one of my FAVORITES, and I have given a presentation on her at a panel at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, and MET her (she was there), and I told her then that I was considering coining the phrase "stealth feminist" for what she does, and she sort of giggled and nodded. I can prove all over the place that she brings in feminist ideas though she said at the panel that she was too busy during the seventies raising her children as a single mother to join any organized groups. When, I demand to the universe, did people get the idea that you had to have been a card-carrying member (or, even worse, gone to a UNIVERSITY) in order to call yourself a feminist? What insane maniac came up with that idea, I moan tragically..... ETHAN OF ATHOS! Totally feminist. The uterine replicator!! A total push to analyze the role of women in child bearing. Technology equality combat issues (space armor--don't need extra upper body strength if you're in one of those suits). Miles' shortness/brittleness of bone (sounds like osterporosis for me); he is marginalized/other character while being the son of the nobility (another presenter did a big thing on how well Bujold handles disability issues in her fiction). All packaged in totally engrossing stories which appeared in ANALOG (heh heh heh) and won awards and which I recommend to all and sundry. Robin ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:21 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: [BDG] Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jane Fletcher wrote: > As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some > general > impressions of the book. As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. Did you translate it directly from a word processor? Did anyone else have this problem? ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 23:52:00 GMT Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" Organization: Omni Systems, Inc. Subject: Re: [BDG] Ash Comments: To: Dave Samuelson In-Reply-To: <3A074039.625B9A3A@csulb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:35:21 -0800, Dave Samuelson wrote: >Jane Fletcher wrote: > >> As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some >> general >> impressions of the book. > >As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has >similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something >earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. > >Did you translate it directly from a word processor? > >Did anyone else have this problem? The message as I received it was MIME with two parts: plain text, which looked fine, then HTML, which looked like what you have quoted, but with tags like
in it. The "garble" ’ is actually the HTML entity for a right single quote (apostrophe). I'd say it's your browser... but I'd also urge everyone to turn off sending HTML altogether, it messes up some mail clients (including mine). --Jeremy H. Griffith http://www.omsys.com/jeremy/ ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 22:05:04 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? > When I started the Ash book, I was very frustrated because Ash is so >clearly the queen bee, I-am-an-exception type, who can deal with women >serving in the ranks, but only under rigidly defined contexts. She is >extremely class conscious -- not unexpected in a fifteenth (sixteenth?) >century European. But she doesn't grow out of this into a new >understanding. I can see the queen-bee analogy, but where does she seem to be restricting the roles of women in the ranks? Certainly she's an exception, but in medieval Europe she would be. In one of the interviews I read Gentle talks about how frustrating she finds it that a lot of psuedo-historical fantasy doesn't treat the issue of sexism at all, and specifically says that she created Ash to be a real, plausible person. Remember, Ash is nineteen years old. She is the exception, yes, she's class-conscious because she's trying to figure out how she can get real power and she's a mercenary, she follows the power and the money. Think of the common meaning of the word "mercenary"--that's her job. She has to be different from all the women who can't be leaders, there has to be some reason why she's running a mercenary company. At some point in the first book she speaks to one of her female soldiers and thinks of how much she enjoys seeing a sister in arms. But she can't possibly have a modern feminist awareness. It's common to project these things backwards in historical fiction, and I loathe it. No fifteenth century woman is going to think of herself as paving the way for future female warriors. She's grabbed a handful of power and she wants to keep it; she's not going to jeopardize that for our ideals. Realistically, there was no hope for those ideals at that time, so why endanger her company? > And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I don't >care how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Can a book >have a male as the main character, and still be feminist? Well, I'm with you on this one, but not because of the man. I thought the ending was a total letdown in a purely literary sense, and I also thought it was sexist and thoughtless. Also, as SF, it was pretty uninformed! Some of the main plot devices stemmed from a error which no viewer of Star Trek could make. She talks about wanting to show that in a foreign environment people couldn't possible know how they'd affect an underdeveloped culture; but to me, the results were telegraphed half a book in advance. > So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction > feminist? I would say that they are an awareness of, and an exploration of, feminist issues; which term I mean in a very broad sense, including political equality, sex-roles, reproduction and childrearing and biological imperatives, the perception of heterosexuality as the norm AND the problems with the "traditional" family units even if one is heterosexual...someone already mentioned Bujold's _Ethan of Athos_, which has a man as a protangonist and is absolutely feminist. On the other hand, I still hate Heinlein's _Friday_, whose hero is a super-strong, super-competent, sexually liberated woman. I think _Ash_ is absolutely a feminist novel. It features a woman in a man's job, struggling to get what she wants, sometimes trying to act like a man and sometimes playing up her beauty (there's a scene in a later book where she realizes that she has failed at something because she has used her appearance as a weapon and right now she is not beautiful; it's a pragmatic and coldly analytical moment). She's complex, not wholly likeable, very real. I can't wait for the last book. Whoever said this book would prompt discussion because some people would hate it was certainly right. I hope we'll hear more from other people who had problems with it; it makes me think about it more. Jessie ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 6 Nov 2000 22:36:18 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Male Protagonists.....etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit << I've been thinking a lot of Lois McMaster Bujold as this discussion has been unfolding. Might some people consider her to not be a feminist because her main character in the Vorkosigan series is male? But then what about Miles' mother Cordelia being the main character in two of the books? What of all of the feminist concepts I've seen in the books I've read so far?>> My roommate and I are having an absolute ball reading aloud to each other Bujold's books as we respectively take turns cooking dinner. I have been collecting Miles for a long time, and it was a delight to go back and re-read Cordelia. I wasn't sure at first whether Miles would pass muster with my roommate. She's much more radical and political than I am. But I've always considered the books feminist, and apparently she does, too. Somebody else asked me how I felt about the character in "The Left Hand of Darkness." This book will always remain one of my favorites. The idea of a character who was neither strictly male nor strictly female was new to me, and I never considered Estraven male. I considered Estraven as Other. On the other hand, Melissa Scott's book about the five sexes struck me as five different varieties of male complaining about how tough they had it. I love Scott, and I was surprised at having this reaction to the book. >>I can see the queen-bee analogy, but where does she seem to be restricting the roles of women in the ranks? Certainly she's an exception, but in medieval Europe she would be. In one of the interviews I read Gentle talks about how frustrating she finds it that a lot of psuedo-historical fantasy doesn't treat the issue of sexism at all, and specifically says that she created Ash to be a real, plausible person.<< She accepts women as figures who act in traditional roles as long as they are overt and have the cojones to get away with it. She is totally freaked out when she finds Florian is really Floria, and comes completely undone when she catches her with another woman. Although she remarks that it is perfectly all right for Angelotti to be with other men. I agree with you about the fact that she is who she is partly because of the time and partly because of her class. She is just trying to get a little piece of it for herself. And I suppose I can't expect her to look beyond that. Sigh. >>> As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some > general > impressions of the book. As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. Did you translate it directly from a word processor? Did anyone else have this problem?<< YES!!!!!! Does it have to do with writing it in HTML or something? I get very frustrated when reading messages like this and often delete them unread because dealing with the trash in the text proves too big a chore. ----s ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:05:50 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Ash This is the first BDG book I've tried to read and was unable to finish. Well, far from being unable to finish, I barely started it. I managed to get through the 2 year old dragging herself through the camps eating scraps, I made it through the rape and face slashing, I got through the explicit slaughter of the cow as it screamed in pain and closed the book in disgust. I'm assuming that there's no let up here, there's one violent, torturous scene after another to which the characters react with as little emotion as possible. What is the point of such a book? I read for several reasons: enjoyment, knowledge, mind expansion, . This book provides none of these things. I didn't enjoy it at all. It does provide some knowledge of camp life in the dark ages, I think. Admittedly I know little about this, but should I decide to know more I'll pursue information that is less explicitly inhumane. Yes, I know people can be inhumane, and knowing this I feel no need to immerse myself in every gory detail. Which leads to the third reason for reading -- mind expansion. I think sadistic writing leads not to mind expansion but to mind numbing. To become inured to human suffering is to kill an important piece of one's humanity. To my mind the basis of feminism is to enable people to form a society in which all people are safe, free to develop their potential, encouraged to grow intellectually and artistically. If one becomes dead to compassion how can s/he possibly work to ensure the safety or freedom of others? So I have to say that no, this is not a feminist book regardless of the fact that the main character is female. Joyce ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:34:21 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: [BDG] Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had my mail format option set to 'plain text'. Obviously it wasn't quite as plain as I had expected. Do you want me to try and convince Outlook Express that I really do mean plain and resend the message, or can you sort it out with a search and replace? Jane -----Original Message----- From: Dave Samuelson To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: 06 November 2000 23:46 Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [BDG] Ash >Jane Fletcher wrote: > >> As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some >> general >> impressions of the book. > >As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has >similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something >earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. > >Did you translate it directly from a word processor? > >Did anyone else have this problem? > >------------------------------------------------------ >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. ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:14:57 -0800 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: [BDG] Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------118854E4730890C448150B7B" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------118854E4730890C448150B7B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now that I know what to look for I can and I've been advised that the problem may be on my end. Apologies for the typo omitting "t" from this, so as to inadvertently change your gender. Dave Jane Fletcher wrote: > I had my mail format option set to 'plain text'. Obviously it wasn't quite > as plain as I had expected. Do you want me to try and convince Outlook > Express that I really do mean plain and resend the message, or can you sort > it out with a search and replace? > > Jane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Samuelson > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Date: 06 November 2000 23:46 > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [BDG] Ash > > >Jane Fletcher wrote: > > > >> As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some > >> general > >> impressions of the book. > > > >As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has > >similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something > >earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. > > > >Did you translate it directly from a word processor? > > > >Did anyone else have this problem? > > > >------------------------------------------------------ > >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. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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. --------------118854E4730890C448150B7B Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="dnsmlsn.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Dave Samuelson Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dnsmlsn.vcf" begin:vcard n:Samuelson;Dave tel;fax:work: 562-985-2369 home: 949-858-7170 tel;home:949-858-7878 tel;work:562-985-4245 x-mozilla-html:TRUE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:dnsmlsn@csulb.edu fn:Dave Samuelson end:vcard --------------118854E4730890C448150B7B-- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:30:29 0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT For me Ash was pure fun to read. Which was a surprise because after the reviews I expected something very, very long with lots of gory details. Well, at the moment I'm very happy that there are still 3 Ash books out there to read. Jane Fletcher wrote: "The amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer hasn't worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many other reviewers seem to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what I would expect reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I." I also expected more drastic descriptions of what battle injuries at that time looked like. Compared to what is nowadays standard I think Ash rather mild. Compared to Lord of the Rings it's drastic. But the "tone" of LotR is so different, that such a comparison is not really appropriate. The book is IMO surprisingly funny. While reading I was grinning half of the time. What did people think of the "frame"? I loved these emails. (Anna to Pierce: "*GOLEMS*???!!! In mediaeval Europe?!") I'm so curious how it will end. In an interview Gentle said that in the frame story she provided all the information for the readers not so knowledgable about 14th century history (i.e. probably most of us) on what is "true" history and what is not. I think it worked very well. I have read only 1 or 2 alternate histories and it always drove me crazy that I couldn't tell what's alternate and what's not (and I think my knowledge of history is at least average). For me it impairs the enjoyment of these books. Jane Fletcher wrote: "I am mesmerised by the character of Ash. In particular I can't think of any other hero (and definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled - Gentle goes to great length to show her as a mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the possible exception of her followers)." Hmmm, exactly where did she act unprincipled? To me it appeared as if she followed the code of the mercenary. Which she perceives as different to the code of the aristocracy. She's deeply disappointed about the treason of her husband although at the same she is of the opinion that if she did the same it wouldn't be treason. Granted, there are personal feelings involved (without which she had probably disposed of her husband within 1 week). I wonder whether Fernando will reappear in the later books and whether he will grow. At the moment he's simply a toad. Ash is a character with many sides. She is ruthless. And self-serving, but also very committed to her company. Loyal to her friends (see Floria/n). But in this first book she is more forced to do things, she's more reactive than active (with some notable exceptions). For several chapters she stresses that she cannot marry Fernando, that she has to do something against it, but in the end she marries him apparently without taking any counter-measures. At the end of the book she seems to take the initiative. About Ash's childhood. I cannot quite decide whether it is believable that after running around uncared as a toddler (is it possible that a child survives that in a mercenary camp?), being raped with 6 and then killing the rapists, being punished for that, etc. a person would be so functional and "untwisted". Jane Fletcher wrote: "As a final, incidental point, one of my favourite moments is Ash getting ready to meet Duke Charles - it comes from such an unexpected angle that it was only when I was half way through the next page I realised I'd just read a version of the scene showing a young woman preparing for an important event by being totally preoccupied by her clothes." Which scene is that again? (I just went back to the book but could not find it immediately). I liked the dress sitting of Ash with her future mother-in-law where Ash humors Constanza up to a point but is never thrilled by finally seeing herself in such feminine clothes (a standard scene in romance novels). So much for today. Petra ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:01:15 +1100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Julieanne Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? In-Reply-To: <3A0672AC.DAFBACC9@cdsnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:58 AM 6/11/00 -0800, Sharon Anderson wrote: >Okay, haul out your soapboxes, I am Bringing Up That Question again. > When I started the Ash book, I was very frustrated because Ash is so clearly >the queen bee, I-am-an-exception type, who can deal with women serving in the >ranks, but only under rigidly defined contexts. She is extremely class >conscious -- not unexpected in a fifteenth (sixteenth?) century European. But >she doesn't grow out of this into a new understanding. I was ready to throw >the book across the room, until my roommate asked if the author was using the >character as a negative model, in which case the book might be feminist after >all. To be honest, though, it's a question I can't answer. I didn't like Ash >well enough to read the 3 sequels in order to find out. I certainly >couldn't tell by the end of book #1. Methinx because there are so few stories in literature, film etc which have strong female characters, that women tend to whoop with delight when we do come across one - its so powerfully affirming, empowering and ego-boosting to find a female character who can kick butt, or wield power, or whatever - but in our understandable delight in finding such a rare gem we ignore everything else, including blatant anti-female themes. This is possibly why when we first discovered McCaffrey, Bujold, Zimmer-Bradley etc - (particularly when young in our awkward adolescent years) - we are so endeared of our first female heroic role models that we defend the authors, even when we might later accept intellectually their limitations. Emotionally we remained hooked:)) I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well - but I feel its a similar reaction to characters like Xena, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Such heroic role models, are not that much different to glamourous film starlets or fashion models, or even famous historical or political figures - basically, they are all role models that are unattainable for the majority of women, and do absolutely zilch to alter the *status quo* - but we love 'em anyway. All these years later, for me now, I see this kind of reader response in women, and feel sad. For a start - they are always 'fantasies' - they are always 'exceptions' - or occasionally, in even rarer cases such as Zimmer-Bradley's 'Avalon' - there are several powerful women characters, who are not only mostly unlikeable, (definitely not the heroes) they 'lose' in the end. There's also an unstated undercurrent assumption, that a female heroic character has to be like a man, or be accepted as an 'Honorary' man - it matters not at all what other women may think of her, it only matters what the male characters think of her. Its like being born female, is being born with a disability, a handicap - and only the 'exceptions' who can overcome that 'disability' are the ones we can admire - but in our delight at finding a woman who is admirable, we tend to not see that often these women, are just 'men' with a great pair of tits. Like someone else on the list mentioned about Shadow Man I think - the one with 5 genders? I had to agree with the idea that it sounded like 5 different varieties of men, whining about how bad they had it in relation to each other. For example, I would never have called Bujold's works, including 'Ethan of Athos', as feminist works - I don't see what's so feminist about uterine replicators, I'm not convinced that removing female biology is somehow going to magically liberate all women. Why is it always women who have to change to become 'equal' anyway? To me its no different to having complex surgery in order to look like a fashion model or porn star - women still have to be "changed" or "transformed" or "rebuilt" or "restructured" somehow. Just because in Bujold's future universe, such technology is quick, easy and painless, doesn't make it any less of a "restructure" of women to a socially constructed ideal that is not convincing as being a feminist ideal - and it's still mostly women doing whatever it is, for men's reasons - and still in support of the male-dominant status quo which is never, ever questioned - There is a scene in one of the early Cordelia novels, where many women were raped and became pregnant - transferring the foetuses to uterine replicators, which were then unceremoniously dumped on the govt of the rapist forces to raise as war-orphans. Nothing was ever said about the rapes - I guess saving the babies just wiped that crime off the books eh? Like mass-rape just doesnt matter? Then Cordelia throws away all her power, status and position to join the man she loves on a backward planet which is modelled on an almost medieval view of women. Men never seem to change at all - men just sat back and let women join in, without so much as a murmur? No backlash? - and often the male characters, while admirable, are not quite plausible IMHO. But maybe that's just me, being pedantic about different "brands" of feminism. Bujold never explains how her 'universe' of female equality came about in the first place - again, like a 'fantasy', like 'magic' - some bits of technology for growing babies in, just suddenly overturned all aspects of female oppression? (on more liberal-minded worlds, anyway) Nonetheless, they are fun, and even if I personally can't find much of a feminist message in them, they aren't anti-feminist either - maybe what they call 'mind-candy' perhaps - escapism, but very good escapism:) > And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I don't care >how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Agreed. I couldn't find a single feminist theme - except at a stretch, the very brief mention of how they all misunderstood which gender was which, of the aliens based on their own faulty assumptions. I didn't even find it all that good on a literary level. The characters, apart from the main character perhaps, are poorly drawn - the writing is uneven, and poorly structured, with inexperienced use of the flash-back/flash-forward technique. A few friends who 'loved it' - told me they enjoyed the exploration of the theme of religious/spiritual "faith" - so maybe it meant something to readers who had a religious upbringing? Cheers - Julieanne:) ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:40:59 -0600 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: Bujold/ was What Makes It Feminist? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001107230115.00a9eaa0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >For example, I would never have called Bujold's works, including 'Ethan of >Athos', as feminist works - I don't see what's so feminist about uterine >replicators, I'm not convinced that removing female biology is somehow >going to magically liberate all women. There are feminist works that do imply some sort of major fix allowing equality (feminist utopias), but I don't see Bujold's work as a utopia. I'm impressed with her speculating about the various effects of uterine replicators which can be used in a variety of ways (some terribly oppressive--as with the quaddies in FALLING FREE) or in a culturally chaanging way (Bujold asking what a society of all men would look like in ETHAN -- and it isn't a militaristic/killing field as some feminists have argued it would be; instead, echoing Shulamith Firestone's question of what would men be like if they had to take care of children, maybe more like women, Bujold's Athos is an intriguing mind experiment). Replicators haven't guaranteed the freedom of all women becuase there are economic costs (as Elly Quinn points out to Ethan, in the other cultures, women have been brainwashed to provide all that labor for free -- a pretty feminist statement if ever I heard one), and different cultures, at different levels of technology, have different elements of rights for women. And I'm not quite sure I buy into the "women have to be like men" as necessarily always evil: that statement if not worked out carefully implies that men are the perfect/default human instead of being culturally conditioned, as are women. I say this from a long history of being accused of being "too aggressive" (i.e. acting like a men) which is bad! If strength in women (and I"m not talking physical either in my case) is always seen as being "masculine," well, then we're in trouble! Just because in Bujold's future universe, such technology is >quick, easy and painless, doesn't make it any less of a "restructure" of >women to a socially constructed ideal that is not convincing as being a >feminist ideal - I don't see Bujold's societies as being feminist ideals -- I do see her exploring feminist issues. I'm not sure what a feminist ideal society would even look like (for one thing, there isn't only one ideal! that was the debate over the seventies feminist utopias that tried to present an ideal that sort of came out looking like a bunch of middle class white women designed it). >and it's still mostly women doing whatever it is, for men's reasons - and >still in support of the male-dominant status quo which is never, ever >questioned - There is a scene in one of the early Cordelia novels, where >many women were raped and became pregnant - transferring the foetuses to >uterine replicators, which were then unceremoniously dumped on the govt of >the rapist forces to raise as war-orphans. Nothing was ever said about the >rapes - I guess saving the babies just wiped that crime off the books eh? >Like mass-rape just doesnt matter? I'm not sure I"d read Bujold's handling in quite that way. Throughout, the issue of women in the military being at risk for rape is a part of her books (especially since not all her planetary cultures subscribe to equality for women--only Cordelia's home culture, Beta?, where hermaphrodites also have equal rights, does (they are also, interestingly enough, the highest tech level). I know people have criticized the plot line of Cordelia leaving Beta (which is also shown not to be a utopia in the way the government was prepared to treat Cordelia right after the war), however, it's interesting to watch how Barrayar is changing. It's the Great Woman theory of History, perhaps, but the causes of that change are multiple -- and in the series, Miles again and again finds that Galactic women are NOT prepared to give up their rights to move to backward Barrayar! > often the male characters, while admirable, are not >quite plausible IMHO. True, I'd say they're too good to be true! BUt what role would males play in an ideal feminist society? (NOt that I think BUjold is interested in writing an "ideal" society -- wouldn't be many conflicts, would there?) They wouldn't be the same sort of men we have today, would they? Robin ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:08:27 -0600 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Susan Hericks Subject: Re: [BDG] Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mine arrived ungarbled. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Dave Samuelson To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] [BDG] Ash >Jane Fletcher wrote: > >> As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some >> general >> impressions of the book. > >As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has >similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something >earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. > >Did you translate it directly from a word processor? > >Did anyone else have this problem? > >------------------------------------------------------ >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. ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 8 Nov 2000 08:25:07 +1300 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jenny Rankine Subject: What Makes It Feminist? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C048F0.7029C3E0" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F0.7029C3E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jessie Stickgold-Sarah said about the Sparrow >I thought >the ending was a total letdown in a purely literary sense, and I also >thought it was sexist and thoughtless. I'm interested in why you found the ending sexist and thoughtless. I didn't experience it that way although I did feel it to be a letdown. Jenny Rankine, Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand ------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F0.7029C3E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [*FSF-L*] What Makes It Feminist?

Jessie Stickgold-Sarah said about the Sparrow

>I thought
>the ending was a total letdown in a purely = literary sense, and I also
>thought it was sexist and thoughtless.

I'm interested in why you found the ending sexist and = thoughtless.  I didn't experience it that way although I did feel = it to be a letdown.

Jenny Rankine,
Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand

------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F0.7029C3E0-- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:48:22 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: SPOILERS from The Sparrow [Was: What Makes It Feminist?] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:25:07 +1300." <1168B489A818D411AD7F00508B2E33500EA3F7@HRC02> SPOILERS FOLLOW: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >I'm interested in why you found the ending sexist and thoughtless. I >didn't experience it that way although I did feel it to be a letdown. The whole book led up to the dramatic revelation of the terrible, soul-destroying thing that happened to the priest, whose name I've already forgotten. I spent 300 pages waiting to find out what could be so horrible. And what was it? It was rape. Now, I agree that rape is a terrible and sometimes soul-destroying thing, but the vision of all these people giving this priest a special place to recover and essentially continual therapy sessions and on and on and on so that he could face the unbelievable trauma--it just made me think of all the women who've been ridiculed and mocked after suffering the same thing. One person commented, when we discussed this some time ago [I think it was here], that the "trauma" came from the fact that the priest had felt himself to be truly communing with God just before being raped, so that it was as though he had offered himself to the Supreme Being and this was the response. But if that was what the author intended I didn't get it; she didn't communicate the religious aspect sufficiently, to my mind. And again, it bothered me deeply that a man being raped was taken so seriously by many groups that have historically been unsympathetic to women and to rape. Jessie ------------------------------------------------------ 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, 8 Nov 2000 09:31:19 +1300 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jenny Rankine Subject: What Makes It Feminist? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C048F9.AF7830D0" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F9.AF7830D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'd like to respond to some of Julieanne's points. She says - "For example, I would never have called Bujold's works, including 'Ethan of Athos', as feminist works - I don't see what's so feminist about uterine replicators, I'm not convinced that removing female biology is somehow going to magically liberate all women. Why is it always women who have to change to become 'equal' anyway? To me its no different to having complex surgery in order to look like a fashion model or porn star - women still have to be "changed" or "transformed" or "rebuilt" or "restructured" somehow. Just because in Bujold's future universe, such technology is quick, easy and painless, doesn't make it any less of a "restructure" of women to a socially constructed ideal that is not convincing as being a feminist ideal - and it's still mostly women doing whatever it is, for men's reasons - and still in support of the male-dominant status quo which is never, ever questioned - There is a scene in one of the early Cordelia novels, where many women were raped and became pregnant - transferring the foetuses to uterine replicators, which were then unceremoniously dumped on the govt of the rapist forces to raise as war-orphans. Nothing was ever said about the rapes - I guess saving the babies just wiped that crime off the books eh? Like mass-rape just doesnt matter? Then Cordelia throws away all her power, status and position to join the man she loves on a backward planet which is modelled on an almost medieval view of women. Men never seem to change at all - men just sat back and let women join in, without so much as a murmur? No backlash? - and often the male characters, while admirable, are not quite plausible IMHO." I disagree with several points here - I *do* consider Bujold's Vorkosigan and Ethan of Athos novels feminist. What's feminist for me about uterine replicators is that they give some (usually richer) women a choice about not being bound by the biology and risks of pregnancy. In a society like Barrayar where technology and medical systems are at low levels, many, many women would die from preventable complications of childbirth, as they do in countries with weak medical systems now. This shakes up the "biology is destiny" assumption of Barrayaran sexism. I don't think the replicator serves men's agendas - Bujold presents it as something that Barrayaran men discount and women value. Women's control of their reproduction has been a core plank of feminist demands since at least last century, with struggles to get access to contraception and abortion (but not forced on any women); access to health services and the choice of women practitioners, etc etc. The uterine replicator fits right in with this feminist goal. It's not the only goal, of course. I also don't agree with Julieanne about the rapes of those women. One of the raped women kills her rapist, a key character, in a later novel. She is shown as traumatised by that experience - it is not trivialised. I do agree with Julieanne about Cordelia just throwing away her job and position to join her lover on a backward planet. One thing missing in the later Vorkosigan books for me is any idea of what Cordelia *does* with her time. She's personally assertive and feminist, yet she is depicted as resolutely non-political, that is not involved in Barrayaran political processes. That doesn't gel for me with her character as presented in the earlier books. I think a woman like her, with her resolute criticisms of Barrayaran society and sexism, would get her hands dirty working the political machine. However, I think Bujold shows Cordelia and her lover regularly questioning Barrayaran sexism and society - every book set on the planet has at least one telling example. I've just been re-reading the Vorkosigan series during a particularly stressful period in my job, so it was on my mind. But enough, already. Jenny Rankine Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand ------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F9.AF7830D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [*FSF-L*] What Makes It Feminist?

I'd like to respond to some of Julieanne's = points.

She says -
"For example, I would never have called = Bujold's works, including 'Ethan of
Athos', as feminist works - I don't see what's so = feminist about uterine
replicators, I'm not convinced that removing female = biology is somehow
going to magically liberate all women. Why is it = always women who have to
change to become 'equal' anyway? To me its no = different to having complex
surgery in order to look like a fashion model or = porn star - women still
have to be "changed" or = "transformed" or "rebuilt" or = "restructured"
somehow. Just because in Bujold's future universe, = such technology is
quick, easy and painless, doesn't make it any less = of a "restructure" of
women to a socially constructed ideal that is not = convincing as being a
feminist ideal - and it's still mostly women doing = whatever it is, for men's reasons - and
still in support of the male-dominant status quo = which is never, ever
questioned  - There is a scene in one of the = early Cordelia novels, where
many women were raped and became pregnant - = transferring the foetuses to
uterine replicators, which were then unceremoniously = dumped on the govt of
the rapist forces to raise as war-orphans. Nothing = was ever said about the
rapes - I guess saving the babies just wiped that = crime off the books eh?
Like mass-rape just doesnt matter? Then Cordelia = throws away all her power,
status and position to join the man she loves on a = backward planet which is
modelled on an almost medieval view of women. Men = never seem to change at
all - men just sat back and let women join in, = without so much as a murmur?
 No backlash? - and often the male characters, = while admirable, are not
quite plausible IMHO."

I disagree with several points here - I *do* consider = Bujold's Vorkosigan and Ethan of Athos novels feminist.  What's = feminist for me about uterine replicators is that they give some = (usually richer) women a choice about not being bound by the biology = and risks of pregnancy.  In a society like Barrayar where = technology and medical systems are at low levels, many, many women = would die from preventable complications of childbirth, as they do in = countries with weak medical systems now.  This shakes up the = "biology is destiny" assumption of Barrayaran sexism.  I = don't think the replicator serves men's agendas - Bujold presents it as = something that Barrayaran men discount and women value.  Women's = control of their reproduction has been a core plank of feminist demands = since at least last century, with struggles to get access to = contraception and abortion (but not forced on any women); access to = health services and the choice of women practitioners, etc etc.  = The uterine replicator fits right in with this feminist goal.  = It's not the only goal, of course.

I also don't agree with Julieanne about the rapes of = those women.  One of the raped women kills her rapist, a key = character, in a later novel.  She is shown as traumatised by that = experience - it is not trivialised.  I do agree with Julieanne = about Cordelia just throwing away her job and position to join her = lover on a backward planet.  One thing missing in the later = Vorkosigan books for me is any idea of what Cordelia *does* with her = time.  She's personally assertive and feminist, yet she is = depicted as resolutely non-political, that is not involved in = Barrayaran political processes.  That doesn't gel for me with her = character as presented in the earlier books.  I think a woman like = her, with her resolute criticisms of Barrayaran society and sexism, = would get her hands dirty working the political machine.  However, = I think Bujold shows Cordelia and her lover regularly questioning = Barrayaran sexism and society - every book set on the planet has at = least one telling example.

I've just been re-reading the Vorkosigan series = during a particularly stressful period in my job, so it was on my = mind.  But enough, already.

Jenny Rankine
Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand

------_=_NextPart_001_01C048F9.AF7830D0-- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:17:45 -0600 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist?/Bujold In-Reply-To: <1168B489A818D411AD7F00508B2E33500EA3F9@HRC02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed More on Bujold: There's also the great situation that the planet is now facing with the shortage of young women for Barrayaran young men to marry (parallels what I believe is already happening in China). That is, when Barrayar finally got its hands on Galactic technology (the planet was cut off during the Cetagandan invasion and afterwards), it first went for technologies of war, but then the reproductive technologies came in. Since Barrayar is resolutely patriarchal (and not only that, because of its use of atomics, mutation problems caused a social more in which any deformity was seen as a mutation and removed from the gene pool, by process of infanticide which was the responsibility of the women), many couples chose to have boys only or mostly. Now the demographics are skewed so (in the latest) the possibility is that many will have to go off planet.... With regard to Cordelia: CIVIL CONTRACT and some of the recent ones hint at the "underground" ways in which women of the nobility (and Cordelia also comments on class inequalities -- look at the scene early on in her marriage where she is aghast to learn the conditions under which some of the urban poor live and tells VOrkosigan's father that the nobility are wasting lots of geniuses, which will be born in the same proportion among the poor as among the wealthy) influence what goes on. The issues are growing -- and taking place over generations. If you've only read one book, you've missed a whole lot because Bujold's characters grow and change over time. I can hardly wait to see what happens in her NEXT one, or the next two.... Robin ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:46:33 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: What Makes It Feminist? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had mentioned the "The Left Hand of Darkness." in relationship to the statement: <> since the main character in this book (the first person narrator) is the envoy Genry Ai - human and male. I personally prefer female characters, however I fear this is solely due to my sexuality, not my politics. LeGuin's habit of writing male protagonists often irks me, however in this book I think it was the right choice. There is scope for more feminist speculation in that Genry Ai has to come to terms with losing his status as a man. He has far more soul searching to do than would a female envoy. Jane ------------------------------------------------------ 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: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:33:10 -0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: BDG Ash MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra wrote: <> Swapping sides three times. You could argue that she had little choice and that it is the mercenary code, however the code for literary heroes is to be on the side of 'right' and ridding the world of evil. It is quite refreshing to have a hero who is so totally motivated by self-interest. It will be interesting to see whether in the climax of the story she will do a 'Han Solo' and ride in with the cavalry. On current showing you would have to guess that she'll take the money and run. There is also cold-bloodedly deciding she would probably have her husband murdered - he is obnoxious, but he doesn't really deserve it. The scene of Ash getting worked up over her clothes is at the start of the second half of chapter five, part four. It ends with 'every chest turfed out', her page in tears and Ash throwing bottles. It is a very minor part of the story, however, for me, it illustrated SFs ability to show something very familiar from an unexpected angle. I'm not sure if I would classify Ash as a feminist book, but I think it is a book that would be impossible without feminism. Ash is a woman who totally defines herself by her own abilities, not by her relationship to the men in her life. Jane ------------------------------------------------------ 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.