From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Mon Aug 26 07:57:43 2002 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:47:30 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at UIC (1.8e)" To: lquilter@BOALTHALL.BERKELEY.EDU Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0206C" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:59:49 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Kirsten Hoyte Subject: The Broken Citadel Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I am currently rereading the The Broken Citadel (part of the Tredana trilogy by Joyce Ballou Gregorian). I am rereading as slowly as possible to savor it --partly because I find it so wonderful and partly because it is transporting me back to about age 12 when I first discovered it. The protagonist is 11 when the book opens and lonely wandering around those great funky mansions in West Newton, MA --which my parents drove by often when I was a child on our way some place. She steps through a window into a completely different world. Anyway, I was looking on the web to see if I could find out some more about the author. Turns out she died of cancer at age 44, but several sites claim that she wrote "many" books. Unfortunately I can't find out any information about any books but those three. Is any one else familiar with her or her other books? Thanks Kirsten ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:16:43 -0700 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Margaret McBride Subject: Re: Recent Reading -- Help! Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020516123312.00aa7590@impop.bellatlantic.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii At 01:14 PM 5/16/2002 -0400, Janice wrote: >Maybe you can help me. Lately I have read two books by authors whose >previous work I have enjoyed -- and found myself very critical. I would >like to see their good points, but I think I need some assistance. So, has >anyone read: > >NEKROPOLIS by Maureen McHugh. > >A PARADIGM OF EARTH by Candas Jane Dorsey. Sorry it's taken me awhile to respond to this--busy time of year for me. I did not like either of these books as much as I have others by the authors but I don't feel quite as negative. Especially, I like the style of McHugh. Her books read like mainstream, mundane, slice-of-life novels and I don't think she wants to solve problems and certainly not use the SF trope of "save the universe." At WisCon the discussion on Nekropolis was about it as a book about co-dependency relationships. Several people saw it as a very positve book--with the idea that little baby steps are all that are possible when someone has been in an addictive situation. I have a friend who has read both books so I asked her opinion and here is her email which I thought you might appreciate" I can do better with Nekropolis than with the Dorsey... my perspective is perhaps influenced by my having a sister-in-law who is a nurse working with immigrant women in Holland, and the composite picture she has given me of the cultures she works with..... What I took from Nekropolis was a very clear image of an ethnicity that offers community and networking and roots but is also oppressive, contrasted with a culture that is more liberal but offers less in the way of connectiveness. Although the book is cast in the future, this trade-off seems very relevant to contemporary developments, and raises real questions about how to achieve/maintain connectiveness while allowing for greater individual freedom. (My favorite book on this topic is Freedom and Culture by Dorothy Lee, an older book that I still find extremely relevant.) It's sort of the "Fiddler on the Roof" question, but goes beyond preserving ethnicity per se to how to balance the sense of BELONGING that stems from continuity, with flexibility.... So I was able to appreciate Nekropolis for its image of this contrast. For me the book's biggest failing was its shortness, leaving little room for development. It didn't feel like a novel, and I felt deprived by not being able to follow the characters as they created some kind of synthesis in their new existence -- I didn't feel we had done this, but rather were just at the beginning and then got dropped. Re the Dorsey: I too found the main character in the Dorsey hard to take. Worse, I found her implausible -- from the beginning I was not able to empathize with her depression which seemed very hypothetical (and hey, I've been depressed, so it isn't just that I can't identify...) I didn't believe in her various lost relationships before she lost them, and I didn't believe in her grief after... I mildly enjoyed the book, which bears obvious comparisons to Stranger in a Strange Land. I think my most positive response was from the optimism of being able to imagine that there might actually be a government capable of responding with the permissions given this household. The news of other aliens incarcerated and killed seemed much more likely. ************************************ Margaret McBride, University of Oregon ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:37:48 -0700 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Margaret McBride Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii > >Woman on the Edge of Time took place in 1976. >Do you feel that politically, and environmentally, the >same concerns are still timely in 2002? Coincidentally, a group here in Eugene was reading WoEoT this year. One of the older women in the group said she found rereading it to be very discouraging and couldn't finish it. She had been highly involved in The Radical Therapist (journal, "movement") as well as other experimental, feminist etc. activities in the 70s and thinking of how energetic and hopeful things were then but feeling that not enough was accomplished made her very sad. I could empathize. I was reading a lot in the 70s about radicalizing the raising and education of children. I still think a lot of the ideas in WoEoT and other readings of the time made a lot of sense but I don't think many changes were made. On some very simple things, we're still doing very poorly--how many places in the US can people recycle easily? How aware of effects on environment of our decisions are most of us? The book still makes me feel hopeful though. If people can write and think about new ways of looking at environment, relationships, etc, the possibility still exists that we can improve. I read SF--of course, I'm an optimist and believe in change! A question: I have talked to people who don't read WoEoT as science fiction. They see it as an indictment of the problems in society, especially our mental institutions, but see the future descriptions as a mental aberration of Connie's, I guess. I don't see that--the trips to the future have to be "real" in the context of the narrative. Connie is a warrior and does a dreadful deed at the end but with purpose--to do what she can to stop the awful future and bring about the better one. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:07:05 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/02 1:45:22 PM Central Daylight Time, mcbride@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU writes: << A question: I have talked to people who don't read WoEoT as science fiction. They see it as an indictment of the problems in society, especially our mental institutions, but see the future descriptions as a mental aberration of Connie's, I guess. I don't see that--the trips to the future have to be "real" in the context of the narrative. Connie is a warrior and does a dreadful deed at the end but with purpose--to do what she can to stop the awful future and bring about the better one. >> I think one of the fascinating things about this novel is that you can 'read' it several ways, Connie as 'escaping' via fantasies, Connie finding strength and hope within her own mental capacities, Connie actually visiting the future and learning from them, Connie being a homocidal maniac (but if you take that reading, you have to face the fact that she is pretty justified and not really a 'maniac'; I think it's very difficult to avoid empathy with her position, even if you don't believe her visits to the future are 'real'), and so forth. I read it when it came out and I did not find it anymore depressing to read it now than I did then. I find the 'future' a little bit programmatic - i.e., we're taken on a tour to show us various aspects of a more feminist, egalitarian etc future and although it's pretty welldone, the characters in the future never are as grittily real to me as the characters in the 'present'., The big difference I see between today and then, is that in the last thirty years, we've had an onslaught of ideology that says that 'feminism' is about 'wanting to be a victim', whereas when this book was written, feminism was about becoming more conscious of oppression. Feminism was on a role then, asserting that oppression a. existed and b. had to be go. Now we have socalled 'postfeminism', which likes to pretend that we are all 'liberated' and those struggles are a thing of the past. We even have some feminists (or ,those who say they are), seeking to eschew the 'victim' 'label' thing, and falling back into an essential prefeminist unconsciousness that acts as if you are only a victim if you consent to be so. What Piercy shows in great detail is how Connie fights back, and how the weight of the consensus of what reality is, in the mental hospital, but also in her own family and the 'outside world', creates a nowin situation for her. It's a remarkably unsentimental portrait, and if you happen to have some lingering identification with the 'professionals' depicted (or the view of reality they represent) it can be a rather uncomfortable read. I think back in the 70s I was still a tad uncomfortable with it, because , like most people, I wanted to think I had more control and it couldn't happen to me. Once you've come up against that kind of power, despite your best attempts to prevent being victimized, the reality Piercy shows becomes just true true true. And I never ever find anything that shows truth to be depressing, on the contrary, it's a way to break silence and open up consciousness. Consuela fights back, and not only that, she sacrifices herself so that another woman can get free. Piercy leaves it open - we don't know if her friend actually gets away or not. But it's really about sisterhood in a very real sense, where selfsacrifice isn't a giving way to oppression but a strategy, in this case, to get freedom for someone, not necessarily yourself, but who might be able to succeed. It could be depressing if you write an ending in your head that is depressing, such as that her sacrifice is in vain. But I think the point of this novel, for me at least, is that Piercy is saying even seeming losses can represent monumental resistance, and that in this resistance, the seeds of real change can take root. Nothing is certain, but choices make all the difference. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:15:54 EDT Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Joy Martin Subject: Re: Woman on the Edge of Time Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/02 6:07:31 PM Central Daylight Time, JOYJoytotheWorld@CS.COM writes: << Feminism was on a role >> I was using homonyms, speaking in my head , this should read, 'on a roll'. :>)-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:01:51 -0400 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Upcoming BDG Schedule Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Fellow discussers -- The votes have been counted and the results are: July 1 -- He, She and It, by Marge Piercy August 5 -- The Fifth Sacred Thing, by Starhawk September 2 -- The Annunciate, by Severna Park October 7 -- The Books of Great Alta, by Jane Yolen This will be the first time that we have ever discussed two of a single author's works in consecutive months. It will be a fascinating compare and contrast session. Thanks everyone for the nominations and votes. I'll be updating the BDG web site at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ shortly. -- Janice, for the BDG volunteers