Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0207D" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:07:38 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: cyborg politics: He, She & It Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I got hold of this book late, but through a bit of serendipity. Happened to stop at a strip mall for a quick lunch and saw a used paperback store, so thought I'd see if there was a copy of He, She & It, since none of my usual haunts had it in stock. I asked the women there if they had Marge Piercy, and they said someone had just brought a bunch of her books in, and sure enough, there was 'He, She and It'. Once I got to reading it, I realized I'd read it before, but have apparently misplaced my original copy. For whatever reason, the first reading however long ago didn't impress me as much - possibly just because of whatever I was doing at the time. But I thoroughly enjoyed this reading. Some of the parallels/contrasts that came to mind were the house which had a male aspect as lover in The Female Man (interestingly the house in He, She and It, is female in personality, apparently because created by a woman, whereas Yod was created by a man), but that being had absolutely no free will and illustrated a largely service (for sex) function. The need to destroy Yod also brought to mind the ending of the Terminator movies, although thankfully that character never took on the lover aspect. I also bought a couple of other Piercy novels at the same time, since they were so cheap, and just read her 'Braided Lives'. A really interesting history lesson, about the late 50s early 60s politics, prelegal abortion,etc. It felt more raw in style than 'He She and It', although similar in the way it was structured. After reading both, I'm a little surprised at how tightly written 'He She and It' was. Even if the golem story was a bit distracting, as pointed out by someone else here. Still, I think the golem story shows us a nontech antecedent to the cyborg, with similar ethical questions, whether it's technological or magical (or, who said, magic is just technology we don't yet understand, or something to that effect?). And it meshed in that both were devised within a framework of Jewish culture. My notion of cyborg has always been more enhanced human (that is, biological based, with non biological framework or additions) rather than a nonbiological being that seems to become human in developing will and independent decisionmaking. The whole question of what makes one human, or alive, or , sentient (with 'rights' and moral equivalency to human or living beings) is fascinating. I remember as a child thinking, if I replaced my leg I'm still human, if I replaced my hand I'm still human, at what point, is there something irreplaceable that I can't change without ceasing to be human? Likely the brain , or so I thought then, don't think much different now, but now we've got people considering preserving their brains as an attempt at immortality (for later revival, they hope), and so on. Even if technologically feasible, one wonders if the end result would be the person as they presently think of themselves? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presented us with the first of these science made 'monsters', who at their core seem perhaps more human than the 'born humans' who despised/feared/coveted them. We are not yet close to any technological creations with the abilities , the feelings and desires in particular, which both Frankenstein and the far superior (intellectually and physically) Yod are described as having. If indeed nonbiological awareness and desires are possible in machines (something that is as yet hypothetical), then it's hard to see how such beings could not be granted a status similar to humans. But it's most interesting wondering what these imaginings say about ourselves. It is heartbreaking to see these beings created only to be sent to their deaths. OTOH, isn't that true of us all? We imagine their creation as a pursuit of perfection, which usually goes awry, or as egomania which leads to destruction of some sort, and yet also within each of these beings there's a flame of shortlived beauty which seems to represent all the unfulfilled promises that flicker across our human dreams. Yod is much more beautiful than Frankenstein, and he also consummates love, which neither Frankenstein nor Joseph were ever allowed to do. Perhaps this is progress?- Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:46:01 +0100 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: Heather Stark Subject: - a very interesting essay by C.H. Cherryh Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Found this by accident the other day when I was looking for a website on concrete garden ornaments. (Don't ask.) It's C.H. Cherryh's view on strong vs weak characters, vs strong vs weak characterisation. Liking, or not liking, a character and what they stand for is one of the themes that often turns up in BDG when discussing a book. If, like me, you haven't checked out C.H. Cherryh's site before, and are interested in her views on characterisation, you might enjoy having a look. She's a good essayist, I think. (The essay also covers her views on whether women writers write stronger women characters). http://www.cherryh.com/www/charac.htm I never found the what I was looking for re: concrete garden ornaments, but I think this is better....;-) cheers, Heather ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:16:13 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: - a very interesting essay by C.H. Cherryh Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the link. She's a terrific writer (talk about someone who can grab you right at the beginning and never let go), and very interesting on the subject of writing. I wish she'd given examples of who she means in the section on weakly drawn women characters by women writers. In fact, the more examples, the better, since I might or might not agree with her choices. It sometimes happens that writers who I think are terrific seem to hate each others writing. Which can be instructive in itself. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:58:51 -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: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: - a very interesting essay by C.H. Cherryh Comments: To: FemSF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:16 PM 7/24/02 -0400, Joy Martin wrote: >I wish she'd given examples of who she means in the >section on weakly drawn women characters by women writers. I think it might seem inappropriate for a writer to "dis" her competition in quite so straightforward a way. I know I wouldn't do it despite nearly irresistible temptations. Perhaps you don't read the truly forgettable stuff by women but examples abound of poorly-executed books that were, perhaps, rushed out the door by the exigencies of scheduling pressure from the publisher and the need for money. The days when an author could dawdle over the exact three words needed to conclude a minor sentence are long gone, as are three and ten year novels. By the time a publisher agrees to publish your book they want it now, or four to six months from now at the latest. For a medium sized book that's not a lot of time. Some of the genre fiction is so driven by schedule and so tolerant of cliche that one reads long passages in one book quite obviously recycled from previous books by the same author with minor revision. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:16:08 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: Rachel Wild Subject: BDG WoTEoT ... late post! Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've mostly been offline for the last two months - so I've missed most of the Piercy discussions [so frustrating and typical that I was so very interested in them ;0}] I just wanted to test your collective patience and have one last go at responding to my point about Connie's relation to the futures she encounters. [smile] What I was trying to explore is the feelings I have about social change being rooted in collective conciousness. I feel that social change is majoritively a collective and active process. Connie has been denied access to much of the collective politics of the 1970's - this does not mean she is less intelegent or motivated or ethical - its a criticism of how the world functions arround her, and also just a matter of luck. Access to political dialogue is limited for many people, by issues such as class, exclusion by political elites, alienation and betrayal [as Connie finds in the war on poverty]. This is not a comment about abilities it's about our history. What I value a great deal about Piercy's characterisation of Connie is how much Connie criticises Matoipoisett. She embodys alternative viewpoints, she resists Luciente', etc. I'm aware that this process can be seen as one of Connie's lesser conciousness being raised by more superior Luciente'... but I find it more gentle that this. Are we to believe that all people have equal capacity to develop political thought - that it springs from the heads of prophets - or that it needs to be collective, that it takes time and education [in the widest sense]? I don't believe a woman *like* Connie could not write a book like WoTEoT but I don't think Connie herself would dream of such a future [as in aspire to] because she fundamentally disagrees with many aspects of its organisation. Maybe she dreams of it in a more etherial sense... e.g. she uses her dreams to process thoughts she won't think in her usual conciousness? [ I find this less plausible] These themes of access to thought come up in Piercy's other work - in He, She ,It there are much discussion of the conciousness raising in the glop, about the importance of information and free discussion and dissent. I don't believe in the superior abilities of some people to think and concieve politically as innate, or belonging to paticular class's. But neither do I want to ignore how thought becomes owned and exclusive - even 'radical' thought. In believing in the need for exposure to political discussion/ activism/ shared action etc. I'm advocating we share such processes more widely. In Connies world such oportunities are rare because societal elites need it kept this way. 1970's liberation movements also often excluded many, many people through middle class hegemony etc. Hope that make's my points a little clearer... Perhaps this subject could also be discussed in relation to _5th sacred thing_ which also devotes much time to discussing how liberation and conciousness change may be nurtured to happen - and what happens whan people are excluded from 'radical' spaces and thought-streams. Hoping to be more regularly online soon ByeBye Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:39:26 +1000 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: Maire Subject: Re: cyborg politics: He, She & It Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <7c.2b53b35e.2a6f73fa@cs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit H iJoy- just a note... it was Arthur C Clarke.... something like " any technology in the future may be so advanced that to us it will be indistinguishable from magic" .. someone may have the exact quote, but that is close enough \ Maire > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Joy Martin > Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2002 1:08 PM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] cyborg politics: He, She & It > > > I got hold of this book late, but through a bit of serendipity. > Happened to > stop at a strip mall for a quick lunch and saw a used paperback store, so > thought I'd see if there was a copy of He, She & It, since none > of my usual > haunts had it in stock. I asked the women there if they had Marge > Piercy, and > they said someone had just brought a bunch of her books in, and > sure enough, > there was 'He, She and It'. Once I got to reading it, I realized > I'd read it > before, but have apparently misplaced my original copy. For > whatever reason, > the first reading however long ago didn't impress me as much - > possibly just > because of whatever I was doing at the time. But I thoroughly enjoyed this > reading. > > Some of the parallels/contrasts that came to mind were the house > which had a > male aspect as lover in The Female Man (interestingly the house in He, She > and It, is female in personality, apparently because created by a woman, > whereas Yod was created by a man), but that being had absolutely > no free will > and illustrated a largely service (for sex) function. The need to > destroy Yod > also brought to mind the ending of the Terminator movies, > although thankfully > that character never took on the lover aspect. > > I also bought a couple of other Piercy novels at the same time, since they > were so cheap, and just read her 'Braided Lives'. A really interesting > history lesson, about the late 50s early 60s politics, prelegal > abortion,etc. > It felt more raw in style than 'He She and It', although similar > in the way > it was structured. After reading both, I'm a little surprised at > how tightly > written 'He She and It' was. Even if the golem story was a bit > distracting, > as pointed out by someone else here. > > Still, I think the golem story shows us a nontech antecedent to > the cyborg, > with similar ethical questions, whether it's technological or magical (or, > who said, magic is just technology we don't yet understand, or > something to > that effect?). And it meshed in that both were devised within a > framework of > Jewish culture. > > My notion of cyborg has always been more enhanced human (that is, > biological > based, with non biological framework or additions) rather than a > nonbiological being that seems to become human in developing will and > independent decisionmaking. The whole question of what makes one human, or > alive, or , sentient (with 'rights' and moral equivalency to > human or living > beings) is fascinating. I remember as a child thinking, if I > replaced my leg > I'm still human, if I replaced my hand I'm still human, at what point, is > there something irreplaceable that I can't change without ceasing to be > human? Likely the brain , or so I thought then, don't think much > different > now, but now we've got people considering preserving their brains as an > attempt at immortality (for later revival, they hope), and so on. Even if > technologically feasible, one wonders if the end result would be > the person > as they presently think of themselves? > > Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presented us with the first of these > science made > 'monsters', who at their core seem perhaps more human than the > 'born humans' > who despised/feared/coveted them. We are not yet close to any > technological > creations with the abilities , the feelings and desires in > particular, which > both Frankenstein and the far superior (intellectually and physically) Yod > are described as having. If indeed nonbiological awareness and desires are > possible in machines (something that is as yet hypothetical), > then it's hard > to see how such beings could not be granted a status similar to > humans. But > it's most interesting wondering what these imaginings say about > ourselves. It > is heartbreaking to see these beings created only to be sent to > their deaths. > OTOH, isn't that true of us all? We imagine their creation as a > pursuit of > perfection, which usually goes awry, or as egomania which leads to > destruction of some sort, and yet also within each of these > beings there's a > flame of shortlived beauty which seems to represent all the unfulfilled > promises that flicker across our human dreams. Yod is much more beautiful > than Frankenstein, and he also consummates love, which neither > Frankenstein > nor Joseph were ever allowed to do. Perhaps this is progress?- Joy > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety > deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:21:47 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: cyborg politics: He, She & It Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Maire- Thanks. I never can remember where most of the quotes I have paraphrased in my mind come from.:>)-Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:49:48 -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: Elizabeth Sweet Subject: Chelsea Yarbro Quinn Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii C.Y. Quinn wrote a story about a Medieval woman who was gambled away by her husband to a cruel man who kept her imprisoned. She was helped by a maidservant. This story was contributed to an Ellen Datlow anthology. I believe it was the Year's Best Fantasy and Horrow. It was a mid 1990s collection. I can't recall the name of this story. I am not sure but I believe this story was an excerpt from a larger story. If anyone knows the name, please clue me in. Thanks, Liz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 21:50:06 -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: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: Chelsea Yarbro Quinn Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: <20020729024948.52087.qmail@web10604.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:49 PM 7/28/02 -0700, Elizabeth Sweet wrote: >C.Y. Quinn wrote a story about a Medieval woman who >was gambled away by her husband to a cruel man who >kept her imprisoned. She was helped by a maidservant. > >This story was contributed to an Ellen Datlow >anthology. Might it be Whispers of Blood, 1991? Chelsea Quinn Yarbro had a story in that anthology entitled "Do I Dare To Eat a Peach?" but it was reprinted from Shadows 8 and from Sisters in Crime III and won Best Novella in 1986. It's also known as "Dare I Eat a Peach?"