Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0202D" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:01:03 -0700 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Susan Hericks Subject: Re: Illicit Passage Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" JAnice wrote: I have my doubts about your theory that Gillie was drugged by Security. Why would all the testimony make such a big deal about her and Bruno *not* eating or drinking the offered "refreshment" if they actually did? I thought the background material on the drugs was important to the rest of the story (it was pertinent to the interrogation of Robert Border, Bruno's history of paloramine overdose, and perhaps the testimony of Gravement), but I don't think there was textual evidence that Gillie took any of the drugs. My interpretation of her recklessness near the end is that she had already planned her dramatic exit from Anastasia Union and felt the euphoria of someone who was calling it quits forever. Which isn't to say that I think she died. Dave mentioned the possibility that it was not Gillie but a robot that was blown up outside the Red Brick Lounge. That's my theory. I TOTALLY AGREE!! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:44:27 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: BDG: Illicit Passage Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I really enjoyed *Illicit Passage*. Like other people I found the book difficult at first. The profusion of documents and narrators was confusing and Annette was at her most annoying early on. As I read on, though, I became fascinated by the picture of Anastasia Union that was forming, the everyday details and very convincing bureaucratic effluvia of a isolated community under stress. And as the end approached the plot really came to the fore. The worsening conditions in New Town and Mangolia, the sudden quickening of the war and the protests, the spy-games and sabotage, all came to a climax at around the same time and were shown to interrelate in a plausible and compelling way. The denouement of Willing's investigation and Gillie's dramatic exit was, in a different fashion, just as gripping. I loved the review of the suspects on the council; it was almost like an Agatha Christie mystery, only better written. And it all ended with enough hope and ambiguity to keep me engaged. I almost want to read it again right away to see how many more references I can recognize knowing the whole story. Gillie is the enigma around whom the entire story revolves. Annette and some of the other narrators comment on Gillie's love of life and how everything she did was in pursuit of fun. But I suspect this isn't completely true. There's an awful lot of her time left unaccounted for. At the very beginning of the book we learn that she wrote the first two volumes of "A History of the War", of which this is the third. It's possible she had a ball doing it (after all, we don't know what's in them), but I doubt it. I think Gillie had a serious streak little suspected by most of her associates. In some ways she reminds me of Dorothy Dunnett's hero Francis Crawford of Lymond, who is also seen almost exclusively from the outside by people who take him for trivial, decadent or immoral, but who is really a masterful actor with a genius-level intellect and a heart of gold (more or less). By the end of the Lymond Chronicles the reader knows Lymond very well because certain viewpoint characters have figured him out; the same isn't true for Gillie. She spends a lot of time with the computers, yet none of the other characters (except Dorman and Doll near the end, when it's really too late) seem particularly interested in what she does with them, so we never get the details. In a way, I like the ambiguity, because it focuses the story on the wider story rather than the heroic exploits of a single character. But at the same time, I want to know more. Margaret wondered if Annette's cartoonish resentment of her sister and worship of authority figures might be a trick. I'm not sure. The publisher's note gives the impression that Annette was intimately involved with the editing and production of the entire book, not just her sections of it. If she were really so loyal to Security, how could she involve herself in a lawsuit against them? On the other hand, it seems plausible that all Annette really cared about was a bit of recognition and the possibility of getting ahead in the world, and she thought working on this book would do the trick. In her narrative she seems completely unaware of the contradictions in her own thought process, so it's possible she threw herself completely behind the book as a means of getting herself known without realizing that a reputation as a blinkered brown-nose might not be better than no reputation at all. In any case, I love the irony that, for all Annette's complaints about Gillie not listening to her point of view, that computer in the basement waited years for *her* input! And I can see why. When she's not insufferable, she can be very insightful, even poetic. Her reports of conversations and descriptions of life in New Town provide the concrete detail and human angle that many of the other materials lack. My favorite passage in the whole book may be her account (p. 193-199) of nesting in a pile of blankets with her mother and sickly Col, arguing and telling stories and finally wailing a mournful hymn, little knowing that the war has just ended. I love the fact that this book is about the experience of war "back home", and that the characters *aren't* all keeping stiff upper lips, thinking always of the war effort. Alice Nunn's speech gives great background on this approach: "My mother isn't usually one to question authority but I suspect, from her way of telling this story, that for once it may have entered her head that the war was being run by idiots." But these idiots can ruin the lives of others, and on a huge scale. The horror of Mangolia at the end was reminiscent of the holocaust. Elimination of undesirables. Secrecy. Mass graves. And the administration responsible for it all is the one Gillie helps to win the war! Of course, it's clear from Cuppard's memos that had they won the CCS might have been even worse. And OSET is far from coherent in its policies; by the end of the war the more oppressive elements are on their way out. But aren't the rest somewhat responsible for what happened? The situation is very complex, and I like how Nunn resists simplifying it, while still finding cause for hope. In that light, I'd like to respond to something Dave said: >Why does Gillie's out-of-left-field winning of the war by computer sleight >of hand lead to the whole society opening up, so that while it is still >unequal it becomes much more like Australia or America today -- >a place with much more equality of opportunity than before? Gillie won the war all right, but I don't think that was the single cause of the changes on Anastasia Union. There were a number of factors, among them the investigation of the Council, the protests led by Leeanne, the escape of several people (including Seamus) from Mangolia, and the blurring of the boundary between spid and nowt brought about by their common hardships and the "lax policies" of people like Parkes (and I do think he made a difference, even before the end of the war). That's one of the book's arguments, I think: that every large-scale cultural change is the product of multiple overlapping causes almost unpredictably reinforcing each other or cancelling each other out. Part of Gillie's genius is that she *can* predict better than just about anyone how things will turn out if she tweaks *here* and *here*... Thank Peep that loathsome types like Cuppard weren't as smart! I think I've said about enough for now, but I do have a few questions that some other people might be able to shed light on: * What happened to Rosenbery? * Where is Anastasia Union? On the moon? An asteroid? * The word "nowt" makes sense as a contraction of the words "New Town" and/or an echo of a dialectical form of the word "nothing". But where does the word "spid" come from? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Jory Nash -- One Way Down "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:27:31 +0000 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Angela Barclay Subject: Re: Illicit Passage Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I'm finding that it's certainly more fun (and fruitful) figuring out a complex plot as a group than alone. I never picked up on the robot clues and didn't know about the aluminum-laser connection often made in SF. I don't know if I'm going to give up on my drug theory, however. I still wonder whether Gillie had used Paramethodone, the countermeasure which helps "guard undercover agents against giving themselves away (p. 217)." As Janice points out, she was very careful not to accept any food or drink from Security. This would prevent her from being exposed to "Aronathal" which kills the 'victim' at the same time as rendering Paramethodone useless. Admittedly, there was no way to test for the presence of P. in Gillie's system. Also, even though we are told over and over again she was able to 'get ahold of anything,' perhaps even Dorman, the official who seems to have her most figured her out, wouldn't likely have suspected it. Therefore, I am left wondering what is her fate, and return to her exchange with Dorman as she is released from the inquisition (p. 203): 'He'll be alright,' said Dorman. (referring to Bruno) She stood up. She said, 'But I won't. Will I?' 'You don't know what will happen?' he said, and they gazed at each other. 'No, but neither do any of you,' she said . . . And she laughed. Maybe the 'you' to whom she refers is the reader; maybe we're not supposed to figure out what happened to her. This way she remains an enigma. ---------- >From: Susan Hericks >To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Illicit Passage >Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 10:01 PM > >JAnice wrote: > >I have my doubts about your theory that Gillie was drugged by Security. Why >would all the testimony make such a big deal about her and Bruno *not* >eating or drinking the offered "refreshment" if they actually did? I >thought the background material on the drugs was important to the rest of >the story (it was pertinent to the interrogation of Robert Border, Bruno's >history of paloramine overdose, and perhaps the testimony of Gravement), >but I don't think there was textual evidence that Gillie took any of the >drugs. My interpretation of her recklessness near the end is that she had >already planned her dramatic exit from Anastasia Union and felt the >euphoria of someone who was calling it quits forever. > >Which isn't to say that I think she died. Dave mentioned the possibility >that it was not Gillie but a robot that was blown up outside the Red Brick >Lounge. That's my theory. > > > I TOTALLY AGREE!! > > Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:44:32 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: Illicit Passage Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC In-Reply-To: <20020223221912.EJGJ8484.priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net @[161.184.43.140]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:27 PM 2/23/02 +0000, Angela Barclay wrote: >I'm finding that it's certainly more fun (and fruitful) figuring out a >complex plot as a group than alone. I never picked up on the robot clues >and didn't know about the aluminum-laser connection often made in SF. In the interests of more fun debate , I wanted to follow up on this question of the cape. It's true that reflective surfaces can bend or deflect light, but it was my impression that the laser in question was a targeting device, not the weapon itself. The explosion in the square was powerful enough to demolish parts of several buildings; sounds more like a concussive blast (p. 236 mentions a "missile") than a more precise laser-only weapon. It's hard to imagine anyone surviving at ground-zero. So the cape might just have been a means of concealing the fact that it wasn't Gillie under there. >I don't know if I'm going to give up on my drug theory, however. I still >wonder whether Gillie had used Paramethodone, the countermeasure which helps >"guard undercover agents against giving themselves away (p. 217)." As >Janice points out, she was very careful not to accept any food or drink from >Security. This would prevent her from being exposed to "Aronathal" which >kills the 'victim' at the same time as rendering Paramethodone useless. If she was never dosed with Aronathal why would she be dying at the end of the book? And if she *was* dosed with Aronathal why would the security memos not mention it when they clearly stated that they had applied for and received clearance to use it on Robert Border? My interpretation of her refusing food and drink was that she didn't want to take *any* drugs if she could help it. And of course Bruno refused because it would be hazardous for him to take Paloramine again after his earlier long-term exposure. Security could have forced the situation (perhaps with injections), but for some reason they decided not to, at least not before Gillie was released. >maybe we're not supposed to figure out what happened to her. >This way she remains an enigma. And a subject of debate! I think you're absolutely right. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Jory Nash -- One Way Down "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:01:15 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: Illicit Passage Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC In-Reply-To: <8B3A7A2CD342D2118E1E00104B0D44ADB5DBE3@mail.prescott.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Harking back to an earlier post... At 08:52 PM 2/5/02 -0700, Susan Hericks wrote: >I got somewhat bored with the denoument after the war ends. I >actually started skipping, particularly the long section on the interviews >of the council members and the conjectures on who was the mole. Perhaps as a >result, I never figured out who it was. Does it ever say? I am still not sure! It was either Gravement or Rosenbery, not both, but there's evidence against each of them. Gravement accepted "refreshment" before his interview (so he received a dose of Paloramine), yet his testimony was suspiciously brief and unrevealing. He may have taken the countermeasure drug. It says on p. 242 that the "chief suspect" had a liaison with Rouseau. I thought this pointed toward Rosenbery, who took no Paloramine before his interview. But further down the page it says that Dorman then picked up Gravement, who reportedly suffered a heart attack on the way to Security. Maybe he had some poison capsules like the ones Robert Border carried? The fate of Rosenbery is never stated, as far as I know. Dierdre St John-Sightly mentions that *something* happened to him, but she doesn't say what. Frustrating! With what little I've been able to put together, I tend toward the theory that Gravement was the CCS agent, but Rosenbery was responsible for the death of Rouseau, whom he really seemed to hate. Does anyone else have ideas about this? This book is truly a puzzle. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Jory Nash -- One Way Down "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:01:17 +0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Diane Severson Subject: Illicit Passage Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I finally finished reading the book and I'm disappointed that I missed most of the interesting debate. Just like everyone else, I found it difficult to get into. I also found it almost unbearably depressing most of the way through. Of course, the discriptions of Gillie's escapades were good to lighten things up, but otherwise... I found there to be a little too much after the climax. But I kept reading because I hoped for a few clues to unravel some of the mystery. She did tie up a few loose ends. Which is all not to say that I didn't enjoy the book. Quite the contrary. And reading all your comments is making me want to read it again right away in order to pick up on more references... but I probably won't! I think Gillie escaped together with Bruno. I figured that she must have worked it out so that it looked like she was killed but that the 2 of them were the couple who displaced the friend and companion of Mrs St.John-Sightly. Wasn't Litza actually the one who called Bruno to set up the meeting? She said something about coming disguised as a nowt wearing one of those cloaks. I was expecting there to be some reference that she was killed or disappeared or something but if there was, I missed it. I thought it would be just like Gillie to take advantage of Litza making a date with Bruno, making sure that everyone thought she was going to meet with Bruno instead and then arrange for her "double" (in the form of Litza) to get killed. But maybe I'm confused. On 24 Feb 2002, at 20:01, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > At 08:52 PM 2/5/02 -0700, Susan Hericks wrote: > >I got somewhat bored with the denoument after the war ends. I > >actually started skipping, particularly the long section on the > >interviews of the council members and the conjectures on who was > >the mole. Perhaps as a result, I never figured out who it was. Does it > >ever say? > > I am still not sure! It was either Gravement or Rosenbery, not both, but > there's evidence against each of them. I think it was Rosenbery. More or less because he said he had a relationship with Rousseau, but I don't remember why that was significant to the identification of the spy. > It says on p. 242 that the "chief suspect" had a liaison with > Rouseau. I thought this pointed toward Rosenbery, who took no > Paloramine before his interview. Oh thank you! > The fate of Rosenbery is never stated, as far as I know. Dierdre St > John-Sightly mentions that *something* happened to him, but she doesn't > say what. Frustrating! I thought he did die. Didn't she attend his funeral or say that they didn't have a funeral, which was funny considering his position? Or was that Gravement. Oh, dear. I think I'm too tired to think about all this. > This book is truly a puzzle. Indeed. Diane Currently Reading: Their Eyes Were Watching God. Recently read: Illicit Passage, Alice Nunn 4/5; Siddharta, Hermann Hesse (deutsch), 4.75/5; The Masterharper of Pern, A. McCaffrey, 3.5/5; The Dolphins of Pern, A. M., 3.5/5; A Woman's Liberation, ed. Connie Willis, 3.5/5; The Fellowship of the Rings, JRR Tolkein 4.3/5; ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:25:59 -0500 Reply-To: scolling@uwo.ca Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: Sharon Collingwood Subject: FSF On-line Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm mostly a lurker on this list, but I'd like to ask if anyone knows of any on-line courses in Feminist Science Fiction. I'm teaching my FSF completely online this summer, and I'm curious to know if it's the first time this has been done. Thanks, -- Sharon Collingwood Centre for Women's Studies and Feminist Research University College The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario N6A 3K7 Office: 206d University College Phone: (519) 661-2111 x85112 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:48:33 +0100 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Castiello=20Restituta?= Subject: Re: FSF On-line Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: <3C7BB717.8F104DDA@julian.uwo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I've tried the internet sarch engine for distance education "The International Search Engine Course Finder" at the URL http://www.dlcoursefinder.com but I didn't find any. Bye Restituta --- Sharon Collingwood ha scritto: > I'm mostly a lurker on this list, but I'd like to > ask if anyone knows of > any on-line courses in Feminist Science Fiction. > I'm teaching my FSF > completely online this summer, and I'm curious to > know if it's the first > time this has been done. > > Thanks, > -- > Sharon Collingwood > Centre for Women's Studies and Feminist Research > University College > The University of Western Ontario > London, Ontario > N6A 3K7 > > Office: 206d University College > Phone: (519) 661-2111 x85112 ______________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!ADSL ti cambia la vita in Internet! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/?http://it.docs.yahoo.com/adsl L'attivazione è gratuita fino al 31/03/02 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:46:15 -0500 Reply-To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC Sender: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: BDG Reminder -- March Discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hello, everyone! This is just a reminder that March's discussion begins next Monday, the 4th. Our selection this time is *The Gate to Women's Country* by Sheri S. Tepper. This book has generated quite a lot of non-BDG discussion in the past; I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts about it. And if any of you have further comments on *Illicit Passage*, feel free to share them into the coming month. There's no reason discussions can't overlap. Best wishes -- Janice, for the BDG volunteers *************************************************************************** The BDG provides a forum for focusing discussion on a particular book during a one month period. The books discussed are nominated and chosen in advance by a vote of all members of the FSFFU-L list serve who choose to vote. Start thinking about your nominations now. To quote our list-mistress, "This does not prohibit discussion of the BDG books at other times; nor does it prohibit discussion of non-BDG books." If you have any other questions about the Book Discussion Group (BDG), its selections, previous discussions or the Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopias Literature List Serve (FSFFU-L), you can start with the BDG website at; http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304, or the FSFFU-L website at; http://www.feministsf.org/femsf/listserv/index.html