Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0208D" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:03:50 -0700 Reply-To: listmistress@feministsf.org Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: listmistress@FEMINISTSF.ORG Subject: listmistress on spam Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu, feministsf-lit@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hi list members (esp. list posters!), i've received an influx of spam lately as has everybody, i'm sure. amongst that spam i've received some particularly horrible spam advertising material that advertises children. i'm trying to track down how, exactly, i got added to those lists, and i'm also spam-proofing the website. so i'd like 2 things from y'all. one, if anybody else has recently received spam advertising material involving children, i would appreciate hearing from you -- if other people on the list are getting it then it might indicate that the list archives are the harvesting source. two, what do people think about password protecting the list archives? would it be a pain in the ass? do you think that it's worth it? do you think you get a lot of spam because you post to these lists, and the archives are on the web? do you have any other ideas about how to spam-proof the list archives? three (i guess it's not just two after all), just fyi, i am going thru the website, the listserve files, etc., and changing all my contact information to listmistress@feministsf.org -- a generic address which will hopefully help my personal email addresses from being polluted. [although it may be too late!] so, if you do have problems with the list, that's the new address to contact me at -- listmistress@feministsf.org . thanks, your frustrated list-mistress laura ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:22:43 +0200 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: Petra Mayerhofer Organization: http://freemail.web.de/ Subject: BDG Schedule Reminder Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU, FEMINISTSF@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The upcoming discussions within the BDG on the feministsf-lit list are September 2 -- The Annunciate, by Severna Park October 7 -- The Books of Great Alta, by Jane Yolen _The Books of Great Alta_ consists of _Sister Light, Sister Dark_ (originally published in 1988) and the sequel _White Jenna_ (1989). The current BDG discussion is on _The Fifth Sacred Thing_ by Starhawk. The next selection round for the BDG will be probably in September. Info for the newcomers: The BDG is one (and only one) feature of the feministsf-lit. It's purpose is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time. Every four months four books are selected to be discussed within the next BDG round. Other books can be discussed in parallel to the BDG, of course, and past and future BDG books can be discussed at any time on the list. The difference to a 'normal' list discussion is that in BDG messages spoilers (for the BDG book under discussion) have not to be pointed out (the 'BDG' in the subject line is the actual spoiler warning). Further info on the BDG can be found at the BDG website http://www.geocities.com/bdg_volunteers/ Petra -- Petra Mayerhofer p.mayerhofer@web.de ______________________________________________________________________________ WEB.DE MyPage - Ohne Computerkenntnisse in nur 5 Minuten online! Alles inklusive! Kinderleicht! http://www.das.ist.aber.ne.lustige.sache.ms/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:04:05 -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: Dave Belden Subject: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT , FEMINISTSF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Note: this is a spoiler. Save this for reading later if you haven^Òt finished the novel. It is also enormously long. I just had a lot to say. I have to say that this is one of the most ambitious and successful novels I know of. Most sf writers would be happy to have believable characters and future society, and a great plot with strong narrative drive. In addition, feminist and other sf authors with a social agenda need at least to present strong female or minority characters; while utopians want to come up with an inspiring future society. Starhawk does all this successfully, in my opinion, before even getting to the most ambitious task she sets herself: to show that non-violence can work against a government and army that equals the worst humanity has produced. She reiterates the litany of Nazism, the slave trade, genocides. These are what her utopian society needs to be able to confront, and change, if it is to survive. And not just these, but plague and disease. Her people^Òs spirituality and politics needs to be big enough to encompass, to know of, the worst evils of which nature and human nature are capable, and to survive. Crucially, instead of objectifying these horrible cruel acts of humans and nature as ^Ñevil,^Ò incomprehensible or devilish, and putting them ^Ñover there^Ò, while we people, the good ones, are ^Ñover here^Ò, she has her people struggle in themselves with these cruel forces. Madrone takes the disease into herself, to learn about it and overcome it. This becomes a metaphor for how the whole community takes the army into itself, and for how Bird becomes part of the army, in order to know it, and grapple with it at a deeper level than violence. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an inspiring and true attempt to grasp at what we humans need. I find this novel extraordinarily inspiring. But I did not expect to, second time around. I found Piercy^Òs Woman on the Edge of Time (WOTEOT), a novel which greatly inspired me back when it was written, to have lost much of its magic for me on rereading for this listserve. But the Fifth Sacred Thing still casts its spell on me, if anything more than it did first time around. This time around, WOTEOT seemed too ungrounded: getting rid of birthing seemed ungrounded, a head trip; the armed struggle seemed unrealistic; the economy seemed unrealistic (with its quotas, reminiscent of soviet five year planning ^Ö typical of the left even in the 70s); both the collapse of the current world economy and the creation of the new one seemed too fast; and the whole creation of such a fully rounded, consensus-driven, feminist society seemed too fast. What grounds the novel is Connie and her experiences and attitudes; but though she is in sharp focus, the future(s) she encounters seem less realistic and more out of focus to me now than they did then. The Fifth Sacred Thing (TFST) has some of the same problems: the too rapid collapse of our current society and at the end, the too rapid disappearance of the military. After the climactic scene where Bird is made to confront Maya in public, Starhawk sends the military packing in less than a page. This is odd, considering how she has avoided easy answers up to then. But I was actually willing to suspend my disbelief on that issue, because I bought into so much else. In TFST there are aspects of the society that do not seem realistic to me: especially the extremes of healing, the bees, and programming crystals or unlocking electronic devices by pure mental energy. And one has to take for granted that the Stewards originally abandoned San Francisco for reasons of their own, rather than because lots of alternative folks dug up the tarmac. But the development of the new society from that point was well told. This utopia is believable. It is full of differences (Cress and his faction, even the differences among the healers over traditional vs. energy-based medicine), and hard choices (e.g. the expulsion of the wild boar people). The people seem totally real: as real as Shevek in the Dispossessed, or Connie in WOTEOT: for my money, more real than Luciente. The economy seems possible, a regulated market economy (this shift to markets happened on the left between the 70s and the 90s). The locale is totally real, especially for anyone who has lived in San Francisco (for 12 years I lived in walking distance of the spiral hill in the lake where the nine crones guard the city). The spiritual basis of the new society has much to do with why I find it more plausible and attractive. It is an eclectic spirituality, broad enough to include the Christian Sisters next door, the Jewish tradition etc., and more focused on ecology and recalling the ancestors than on supernatural beings. It goes forward through myth, story, symbolism, music, ritual, healing, energy work: the richness of traditional religions and then some, without their dogmas. As an agnostic, even I can buy into it. The left as a whole spent most of the 20th century lacking any deep and universally available spirituality, (and lacking even the desire for it), and in my experience, it was feminists who started bringing it in, in the 1980s. I believe there are reasons why religions survive, beyond their misappropriation as rationalizations for powerful elites. The secular left cut off much of its own spiritual nourishment by rejecting religion as the opiate of the masses. That^Òs one reason why Starhawk^Òs vision feels to me like a more mature or holistic feminism than the 70s variety that lies behind WOTEOT. The social egalitarianism in WOTEOT and TFST both come from the socialist/anarchist left, the gender politics from feminism; the polyamory in both novels is pure 70s alternative culture; but the healing and spirituality, like the ecological consciousness and understanding of market economics, is more a development of the 80s. It^Òs a step forward, a larger embrace of the world. As a man, of course, I also like that Starhawk^Òs is not a feminism that writes off men. She is perfectly clear about the evil of male violence. But a crucial moment in the book is when the military is trying to break down Bird in jail one little step at a time, and they think getting him to rape Rosa is the next small step; whereas for him it is the ultimate impossibility. The implication is that it would be for most men raised like him. Did people find this plausible? More or less plausible than the bees? I don^Òt know, but I thank her for it: we men desperately need to be believed in. This too made it seem like a more mature feminism, or perhaps I should say a more universal or human approach. (This is not by contrast to Piercy, who shares this breadth, but still I found it more developed in this novel). The focus on disease also made it more universal. Disease is not a gender issue, at base. How it is treated, its sociology etc. of course is gendered. But the most feminist, egalitarian society will still have disease. This novel was written in the Western city perhaps hardest hit by plague in the lifetime of Starhawk^Òs (and my) generation. Personal knowledge of San Francisco in the time of AIDS before the current life-prolonging drugs suffuses this novel. It brings a sense that our struggle is not just against oppression, but for life and health itself. But the best thing for me is Starhawk^Òs attempt to tackle non-violence head on. This is why she has to make the Stewards so terrible ^Ö caricatures of both right wing Christians and corporations, and way beyond what they could become in one generation, in my opinion. That debate aside, she clearly needed a Nazi-level regime to go up against. As I wrote at the start, she constantly reiterates the horrors of the past: the Holocaust, the slave trade, the genocide of Native Americans. This is extraordinarily ambitious. She wants to heal the whole of history. She wants to say: non-violence doesn ^Òt just work against relatively democratic people who want to preserve their moral self image like the British in India, or white Americans in Selma, it will work anywhere. Or at least, it must be tried even if it fails, because violence never works. I looked for and failed to find the place where she actually says that violence never works. It^Òs there somewhere. That is a huge debate in itself ^Ö I think it is much less clear than she argues. One of the great surprises of history, to me, is that the European powers which caused more carnage than any others in history, have been at peace with each other for almost 60 years, and are unlikely to go to war with each other again. I am overwhelmingly grateful to all those who fought the Nazis to make it so. No doubt training the entire population of late 1930s Europe in non-violent resistance, of the sort portrayed in this novel, would have secured a better result. But that was not remotely feasible, and agreeing that mass non-violence would have been better doesn^Òt mean that fighting Hitler was wrong or that it didn^Òt change anything. Fighting Hitler changed a great deal, saved modern European democracy, gave growing space for countless lives and for vital ideas, such as modern feminism. Some mid-19th century Christian revivalists, notably Charles Finney, the most successful of them, argued that Christians should not get involved in political campaigns against slavery, since revivals would change enough slave owners to end it voluntarily. Thank God (?) many Christians disagreed and led the political fight for abolition. At times Starhawk^Òs purism seems as out of touch as Finney^Òs. Both are right, in one sense: changing hearts is better than coercion. But can it work on a big scale, to change history? The challenge Starhawk undertakes is to make a plausible scenario in which 1) a whole population can be trained to forego violence and coercion and undertake a kind of deep public theater in order to try and change the oppressors^Ò hearts, and 2) they do this against the worst history has to offer. And in spite of the speed of the army^Òs collapse at the end, I think she makes her case incredibly well. Am I being naïve? I actually think she makes it work. (Will I still in a month, when the novel^Òs glamour has faded?). In TFST you can see how hard it is to get consensus even in a totally prepared populace like this one, how it could be done, how they could train (as Starhawk has trained many groups herself), what the cost would be in applying it, how it could affect the enemy. It reads true, and possible, in such a context, to me. That doesn^Òt mean I think the Jews could have avoided the Holocaust by such actions ^Ö the context was too different. Likewise, the Palestinians^Ò history has probably prepared them less well to follow a Palestinian Gandhi, should such have appeared, than the Indians^Ò history prepared them for Gandhi himself: though, really, the appearance of a Gandhi or an MLK or Mandela is utterly astonishing anywhere. The question for us is, are we more ready than previous populations to try such a strategy, if put to the test ourselves ^Ö e.g. by a fascist-type takeover in the USA? I think that modern peace, plenty, education, and health have made us more able to learn of such things, to read novels like this, to imagine such outcomes, than our grandparents^Ò generation in Europe. Are we too lulled by advertising and TV to get off our butts and try it? I don^Òt know, but I don^Òt think so. Today, a lot more people would at least have a go than tried to in 1939. This brings me to my main problem with the novel. Using the terms of the novel itself, you can think of any situation, especially a crisis, as the Good Reality (el Mondo Bueno) or the Bad Reality. In such terms, there is little doubt that Starhawk sees our present society as the Bad Reality. I know she had to portray it as such, for the novel. I wonder what she really thinks? I fear she is so far into her alternative culture, that she demonizes the mainstream. And the danger of this, as she explains in other contexts in her novel, is that defining something as the Bad Reality helps to make it so. I think that democracy and freedom and the rule of law run deep in this culture. Creating even this much democracy has been a long tough road. I have lived in countries without (e.g. Eritrea under Haile Selassie). For people in dictatorships, the imperfect US democracy looks unattainably wonderful. I don^Òt think it would be given up as easily as it is in this novel. I think that Starhawk has bought into a general gloom and doom on the left that takes every sign of social sickness and extrapolates it to its most horrific possible conclusion. From this viewpoint, when ecological degradation was ^Ñdiscovered^Ò in a big way in the 70s and 80s, the only plausible outcome is a Central Valley as desert, oceans too toxic to swim in, the whales gone, as in TFST: when in fact the discovery of degradation started the ball rolling the other way. Several whale species are already abundant again. So also, when the resurgence of the Christian right was ^Ñdiscovered^Ò in the 1970s and 80s, left imaginations went wild with scenarios like The Handmaid^Ò s Tale and the TFST Stewards / Millennialists. But that^Òs demonizing. (I know lots of SF has fun doing this, and mostly I don^Òt object, but I am taking this novel more seriously, as seriously as it asks to be taken, and I think such demonizing has consequences). The whales are recovering, and there is evidence the fundamentalists are also. A recent New York Times article pointed out that when security situations have got impossible in some African countries lately, and most Western medical teams left, the only ones who stayed were the fundamentalist Christians. They have recently got energized about combating AIDS in Africa. If Bono had not believed Jesse Helms could change his decades-long opposition towards aid to the poorest, he would not have talked religion to him. Bono took the el Mondo Bueno view, and Helms changed his outlook, and so billions of unexpected dollars are going to Africa (at least in theory ^Ö now looks like there are hold-ups). There are good sociological reasons why fundamentalists become more vested in this-worldly solutions as their clientele becomes better off. Defeat in the Civil War, and being left behind economically by the North, generated Bible Belt fundamentalism: the magical solution of the Second Coming. The current economic rise of the South will eventually turn the fundamentalists back into folks who believe in progress, the social gospel, and being stewards (in the best sense) of the environment. I am told there are already fundamentalist environmental groups. I am a stuck record on this topic, on this listserve, so I will leave it. But my point is simply that the left^Òs penchant for thinking the worst helps galvanize public opinion to change things at some times, but in the long run leads many idealists, especially young idealists, to give up on Western civilization and democracy altogether. This is frightening. It is giving up on so much accomplishment by brave women and men who fought for and won incremental gains. Demonizing the opposition doesn^Òt help them change at all ^Ö as demonstrated rather beautifully by the non-violent tactics in TFST. I objected to this demonizing tendency in the Handmaid^Òs Tale, WOTEOT and He, She and It, and I object to it in TFST. At the same time, I see that for Starhawk^Òs broader purpose, it is necessary to construct a terrible, cruel, fundamentalist enemy to go up against. I expected to dislike TFST, second time around, because of this demonizing. Instead I was completely won over by the humanity of the novel. This is what I want for the future: an egalitarian spiritually alive garden city, with people trained in non-violent conflict. It^Òs just that I believe we can get there slowly by evolution, not by demonizing anyone or expecting the worst. The latter may actually help create or allow to happen the very evils we fear. I prefer to believe Starhawk needed a fascist America for her novel, but in fact is working to avoid that outcome and does not believe it need happen. I want to believe that she sees the worst of the Bad World, but chooses to live in el Mundo Bueno. That is the biggest challenge, bar none, that religion, literature, academia and humans in general can aspire to. This novel, despite and because of its contradictions, is a great teaching tool and inspiration in that task. Dave Dave Belden web page: www.davidbelden.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:37:52 -0500 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: Edie Bell Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia , FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_781378402==_.ALT" --=====================_781378402==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >At 02:04 PM 8/26/2002 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: > >But the best thing for me is Starhawk=92s attempt to tackle non-violence= head >on. This is why she has to make the Stewards so terrible =AD caricatures of >both right wing Christians and corporations, and way beyond what they could >become in one generation, in my opinion. That debate aside, she clearly >needed a Nazi-level regime to go up against. As I wrote at the start, she >constantly reiterates the horrors of the past: the Holocaust, the slave >trade, the genocide of Native Americans. This is extraordinarily ambitious. >She wants to heal the whole of history. She wants to say: non-violence= doesn >=92t just work against relatively democratic people who want to preserve= their >moral self image like the British in India, or white Americans in Selma, it >will work anywhere. Or at least, it must be tried even if it fails, because >violence never works. > >I looked for and failed to find the place where she actually says that >violence never works. It=92s there somewhere. That is a huge debate in >itself =AD I think it is much less clear than she argues. One of the great >surprises of history, to me, is that the European powers which caused more >carnage than any others in history, have been at peace with each other for >almost 60 years, and are unlikely to go to war with each other again. I am >overwhelmingly grateful to all those who fought the Nazis to make it so. No >doubt training the entire population of late 1930s Europe in non-violent >resistance, of the sort portrayed in this novel, would have secured a= better >result. But that was not remotely feasible, and agreeing that mass >non-violence would have been better doesn=92t mean that fighting Hitler was >wrong or that it didn=92t change anything. Fighting Hitler changed a great >deal, saved modern European democracy, gave growing space for countless >lives and for vital ideas, such as modern feminism. > >Some mid-19th century Christian revivalists, notably Charles Finney, the >most successful of them, argued that Christians should not get involved in >political campaigns against slavery, since revivals would change enough >slave owners to end it voluntarily. Thank God (?) many Christians disagreed >and led the political fight for abolition. At times Starhawk=92s purism= seems >as out of touch as Finney=92s. Both are right, in one sense: changing= hearts >is better than coercion. But can it work on a big scale, to change history? >The challenge Starhawk undertakes is to make a plausible scenario in which >1) a whole population can be trained to forego violence and coercion and >undertake a kind of deep public theater in order to try and change the >oppressors=92 hearts, and 2) they do this against the worst history has to >offer. And in spite of the speed of the army=92s collapse at the end, I= think >she makes her case incredibly well. ----------------------------------------------------- I completely disagree with the premise that The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a= =20 successful non-violent community, being that their freedom was ultimately=20 preserved by ***having the members of the military that were "converted"=20 violently attack and kill the remaining military***. A non-violent=20 community does NOT have a militia if they are truly non-violent. In fact, even though non-violent resistance is something I hold near and=20 dear to my heart, I would have been less put off if they had decided to=20 ultimately take up arms and defend their way of life. But instead they let= =20 the former military that had "seen the non-violent truth" go about shedding= =20 the blood for them. They didn't even try to stop them from fighting the=20 unconverted military, or express regret over the besmirching of their=20 belief system. If anything, the book shows that you can hold lofty ideals= =20 AND still profit guilt-free from those ideals being violated IN YOUR NAME,= =20 so long as you personally don't hold the gun, as it were. That is=20 something that I believe doesn't gibe well with the ostensible message of=20 true non-violent activism. Not much of a change of the status quo, IMHO. Can you tell how very much I hated the ending of this book? I swear, it=20 had me till then, but such a glaring hypocrisy is not something I can=20 swallow for a nifty yarn. Edie --=====================_781378402==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 02:04 PM 8/26/20= 02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote:

But the best thing for me is Starhawk=92s attempt to tackle non-violence head
on. This is why she has to make the Stewards so terrible =AD caricatures of
both right wing Christians and corporations, and way beyond what they could
become in one generation, in my opinion. That debate aside, she clearly
needed a Nazi-level regime to go up against. As I wrote at the start, she
constantly reiterates the horrors of the past: the Holocaust, the slave
trade, the genocide of Native Americans. This is extraordinarily ambitious.
She wants to heal the whole of history. She wants to say: non-violence doesn
=92t just work against relatively democratic people who want to preserve their
moral self image like the British in India, or white Americans in Selma, it
will work anywhere. Or at least, it must be tried even if it fails, because
violence never works.

I looked for and failed to find the place where she actually says that
violence never works. It=92s there somewhere. That is a huge debate in
itself =AD I think it is much less clear than she argues. One of the great
surprises of history, to me, is that the European powers which caused more
carnage than any others in history, have been at peace with each other for
almost 60 years, and are unlikely to go to war with each other again. I am
overwhelmingly grateful to all those who fought the Nazis to make it so. No
doubt training the entire population of late 1930s Europe in non-violent
resistance, of the sort portrayed in this novel, would have secured a better
result. But that was not remotely feasible, and agreeing that mass
non-violence would have been better doesn=92t mean that fighting Hitler was
wrong or that it didn=92t change anything. Fighting Hitler changed a great
deal, saved modern European democracy, gave growing space for countless
lives and for vital ideas, such as modern feminism.

Some mid-19th century Christian revivalists, notably Charles Finney, the
most successful of them, argued that Christians should not get involved in
political campaigns against slavery, since revivals would change enough
slave owners to end it voluntarily. Thank God (?) many Christians disagreed
and led the political fight for abolition. At times Starhawk=92s purism seems
as out of touch as Finney=92s. Both are right, in one sense: changing hearts
is better than coercion. But can it work on a big scale, to change history?
The challenge Starhawk undertakes is to make a plausible scenario in which
1) a whole population can be trained to forego violence and coercion and
undertake a kind of deep public theater in order to try and change the
oppressors=92 hearts, and 2) they do this against the worst history has to
offer. And in spite of the speed of the army=92s collapse at the end, I think
she makes her case incredibly well.


-----------------------------------------------------


I completely disagree with the premise that The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a successful non-violent community, being that their freedom was ultimately preserved by ***having the members of the military that were "converted" violently attack and kill the remaining military***.  A non-violent community does NOT have a militia if they are truly non-violent.

In fact, even though non-violent resistance is something I hold near and dear to my heart, I would have been less put off if they had decided to ultimately take up arms and defend their way of life.  But instead they let the former military that had "seen the non-violent truth" go about shedding the blood for them.  They didn't even try to stop them from fighting the unconverted military, or express regret over the besmirching of their belief system.  If anything, the book shows that you can hold lofty ideals AND still profit guilt-free from those ideals being violated IN YOUR NAME, so long as you personally don't hold the gun, as it were.  That is something that I believe doesn't gibe well with the ostensible message of true non-violent activism.  Not much of a change of the status quo, IMHO.

Can you tell how very much I hated the ending of this book?  I swear, it had me till then, but such a glaring hypocrisy is not something I can swallow for a nifty yarn.

Edie
 --=====================_781378402==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:39:36 -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: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020826170808.00ab5268@mail.bsinc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 05:37 PM 8/26/02 -0500, Edie Bell wrote: > I completely disagree with the premise that > The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a successful > non-violent community... This is a common problem in attempts to show non-violence succeeding, in the face of anecdotal evidence that it rarely does and overwhelming experience to the contrary, that violence quite often changes the course of history so radically that all the non-violence in the world can't put things right. Heinlein is famous for his dismissive argument that one need only ask the city fathers of Carthage whether they thought that "violence ever solved anything," the point being that "Carthago delenda est," Cato's bellicose rallying cry, succeeded in doing exactly that, utterly destroying Carthage and the Punic (Phoenician) civilization. We note that the site of Carthage (near Tunis in Tunisia) is still in ruins after the inhabitants were sold into slavery or slaughtered, the fields sown with salt, and the city brought down with particular Roman efficiency. We recollect that the Phoenicians themselves haven't been heard of in quite some time, and that Roman culture and language are still with us, an important part of every English speaker's education. Violence is equally decisive in individual lives, cutting off many with no other recourse than a hope of reincarnation or heavenly bliss, destroying the happiness of others, blighting their lives and happiness, while others are relatively unharmed. Except perhaps from the lingering effects of survivor guilt. Katherine V. Forrest's SciFi work has similar failings as does Starhawk's, with the resolution of the plots depending heavily on violence but the characters blissfully denying that violence took place, or that they had any hand in facilitating it, in a surreal, even psychotic, dissociation from the reality they seem to exist within. Daughters of an Amber Noon, the sequel to Daughters of a Coral Dawn, is the worst of all, with the women running screaming into the closet when faced with difficulties, cowering until a *man* rescues them by murdering all the bad guys, and then coming out of hiding while congratulating themselves on the success of their "non-violent" response to danger. This approach to self-defense will be familiar to anyone who's ever watched a movie from the 40's, where the proper response of women in any danger, whether from alien invaders, dangerous criminals, or mice, is to faint dead away and wait for the hero to rescue her. A thousand film noir detectives, G-men, and cowboys have all played out this same scenario with "plug-compatible" (and I use this phrase advisedly) heroines who furnish the hero's reward with a visible kiss and a swift fade to black with the implication of a much more tangible "reward" to follow. Indeed, this formula is still with us, a staple of popular culture. Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch. The Daughters, who had advanced science and technology that *might* have made a difference in a world in which millions of women were being systematically murdered, raped, and enslaved, wisely decided that as long as they were safe it was just too bad about the women not part of their tribe. While they were saddened by the fate of the great majority of women, the crypto-racist descendents of a superior being from outer space really owed it to themselves to be as safe and comfortable as possible, concentrating on their artistic growth and pursuit of the finer things in life while doing their best to ignore the screams coming from outside their safe little hidey hole. I'm reminded of the scene in The Fantastiks where the young girl is able to dance and laugh while people are being tortured, as long as she has the mask over her eyes. Anonymity allows us to hide behind masks, to ignore injustice and oppression, to let the victim cry out unheeded. It's only when the masks are stripped away, when our naked cowardice is exposed for all to see, that we are moved to act. The Daughters were not just in hiding from their enemies, they were hiding from their sisters, utterly terrified to let *them* know that they, the Daughters, were safe and cozy while all other women were hunted and murdered for sport. And these are supposed to be "feminist" novels. By these standards, the craven (or complicit) acquiescence of the mass of Europeans to the slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other ethnic and social minorities was heroic humanitarianism; American tolerance of the Ku Klux Klan principled adherence to moral law; and the 38 neighbors of Kitty Genovese, who was first mugged, then raped, and then cruelly murdered over the course of half an hour while said neighbors did nothing, even to call the police, noble representatives of all that is good in America. The problem addressed in many utopian novels is that a basic premise, the collapse of current civilization, has already happened hundreds of times over the ages. What follows is *never* utopia but rather armed struggle, civil disorder, rapacious conquest by outsiders, merciless exploitation, and a general mess. The collapse of civilizations, even deeply flawed civilizations, has always meant an enormous increase in human misery and grief. Civilization is, in fact, our closest approach to utopia yet, even this one. There is no doubt that it could be made better, tinkered with, modified, tweaked, but the adolescent desire to "grasp this sorry scheme of things entire," to "shatter it to bits and then remold it nearer to the heart's desire" is futile and uninformative, more suited to a religious fanatic than a liberal humanist. Maturity usually brings with it respect for the accomplishments of our parents, overcoming our puerile disdain with, first grudging admiration, then awe that so much has been accomplished by people merely mortal, striving to be and do the best they can in the face of many obstacles, both without and within. There is another sort of Utopia, best exemplified perhaps by Wright's Islandia, in which the past is revered, in which people study for years to discover ways to improve the land left to them by their parents, who were equally respectful of the past and of the nature of their land, before daring to "improve" anything. The literary art form of Islandia is not grand dramas, tragedies involving kings and warriors, but the anecdote, the homely fable. The Islandians see worlds in the daily interaction between two ordinary people, where we view mighty wars and courtly intrigue as metaphors for our own lives. Where we talk of Hamlet, of murder, and great alarums, they talk of a visit to a farmer by his friend, and how when he left he noted that, despite his lack of particular gifts otherwise, his wife and children were happy and untroubled, and his memory of that family's house was one of laughter and joy. "Come by the hills to a land where fancy is free And stand where the peaks meet the sky and the lochs reach the sea Where the rivers run clear and the bracken is gold in the sun And the cares of tomorrow must wait 'til this day is done. "Come by the hills to the land where life is a song And sing while the birds fill the air with their joy all day long Where the trees sway in time and even the wind sings in tune And the cares of tomorrow can wait 'til this day is done. "Come by the hills to a land where legend remains Where stories of old stir the heart and may yet come again Where the past has been lost and the future has still to be won And the cares of tomorrow must wait 'til this day is done." - Traditional Scots Air (Tune: Buchal an Eire) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:11:17 -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: Gwen Veazey Subject: Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: feministsf-lit@UIC.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C24DBA.772D2BA0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C24DBA.772D2BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am enjoying all the responses on _Fifth Sacred Thing_. (Thanks to Dave = for his thoughtful analysis and the welcome he extended to all of us for = our comments.) Thanks to Lee Ann and Edie also - good points about = non-violence. I liked the novel despite the magic-is-real, but was = disturbed by the male character having to undergo extreme torture. I = know, that's life, but still disturbing to me. It reminded me of how = some interpret the Christian passion: suffering, in and of itself, is = redemptive and good. You have to experience the worst to get to the = best, etc. I have a lot of trouble with this idea, and I think it's = because the concept is used to keep powerless people from acknowledging = that they could take action. I know it's been used to "counsel" battered = women to stay with abusive husbands. Could someone help me out with why = Starhawk felt the need to include this torture? (I confess to having = read the book ten or more years ago - so may be remembering/not = remembering accurately.) I am aware that the idea that Christ suffered = the worst and overcame it is comforting to many, despite the = supernatural nature of the "overcoming." One of the most powerful scenes I remember was the character falling = into a swimming pool. What a vivid image after her days of extreme = thirst. I thought Starhawk succeeded in having the reader feel the same = shock as her character in discovering such extravagances existed.=20 I had the opportunity to meet Starhawk in '92 at an east coast event and = found her to be warm, friendly, and down to earth. Enjoyed participating = in mixed gender rituals, because I usually am involved in women-only = gatherings. It's different. Of interest: Starhawk spoke at a = Presbyterian sponsored event 10-15 years ago and the fundamentalist = Presbyterians are still using her name to invoke terror and raise money. = Ha. Best, Gwen =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C24DBA.772D2BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am enjoying all the responses on _Fifth Sacred Thing_. (Thanks to = Dave for=20 his thoughtful analysis and the welcome he extended to all of us for our = comments.) Thanks to Lee Ann and Edie also - good points about = non-violence. I=20 liked the novel despite the magic-is-real, but was disturbed by the male = character having to undergo extreme torture. I know, that=92s life, but = still=20 disturbing to me. It reminded me of how some interpret the Christian = passion:=20 suffering, in and of itself, is redemptive and good. You have to = experience the=20 worst to get to the best, etc. I have a lot of trouble with this idea, = and I=20 think it=92s because the concept is used to keep powerless people from=20 acknowledging that they could take action. I know it=92s been used to = "counsel"=20 battered women to stay with abusive husbands. Could someone help me out = with why=20 Starhawk felt the need to include this torture? (I confess to having = read the=20 book ten or more years ago - so may be remembering/not remembering = accurately.)=20 I am aware that the idea that Christ suffered the worst and overcame it = is=20 comforting to many, despite the supernatural nature of the = "overcoming."

One of the most powerful scenes I remember was the character falling = into a=20 swimming pool. What a vivid image after her days of extreme thirst. I = thought=20 Starhawk succeeded in having the reader feel the same shock as her = character in=20 discovering such extravagances existed.

I had the opportunity to meet Starhawk in =9192 at an east coast = event and=20 found her to be warm, friendly, and down to earth. Enjoyed participating = in=20 mixed gender rituals, because I usually am involved in women-only = gatherings.=20 It=92s different. Of interest: Starhawk spoke at a Presbyterian = sponsored event=20 10-15 years ago and the fundamentalist Presbyterians are still using her = name to=20 invoke terror and raise money. Ha.

Best,

Gwen   

------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C24DBA.772D2BA0-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:02:10 -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: Dave Belden Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020826170808.00ab5268@mail.bsinc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edie wrote: I completely disagree with the premise that The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a successful non-violent community, being that their freedom was ultimately preserved by ***having the members of the military that were "converted" violently attack and kill the remaining military***. A non-violent community does NOT have a militia if they are truly non-violent. In fact, even though non-violent resistance is something I hold near and dear to my heart, I would have been less put off if they had decided to ultimately take up arms and defend their way of life. But instead they let the former military that had "seen the non-violent truth" go about shedding the blood for them. They didn't even try to stop them from fighting the unconverted military, or express regret over the besmirching of their belief system. If anything, the book shows that you can hold lofty ideals AND still profit guilt-free from those ideals being violated IN YOUR NAME, so long as you personally don't hold the gun, as it were. That is something that I believe doesn't gibe well with the ostensible message of true non-violent activism. Not much of a change of the status quo, IMHO. Can you tell how very much I hated the ending of this book? I swear, it had me till then, but such a glaring hypocrisy is not something I can swallow for a nifty yarn. Edie I read that ending completely differently from you. Starhawk was not trying for some pure, idealist's utopian vision, unsullied by real nasty human life. This was the best that could happen in the dirty, foul circumstances of that time. Part of it is, this was the best that Ohnine/River could come up with. This was as far as he could go. What a huge change to get that far. Part of it is, like aikido, using the power of the blow to topple the attacker, using part of the army against itself; turn its violence on itself. But it was not done by trickery, it was done by reaching the better nature, the more human nature of the soldiers themselves: this was the best these soldiers could do and it saved the people they had started to care about. This could not have been done by approaching Ohnine and the others with violence: it could only have been done by approaching them with some extraordinary theater of humanity. I'm sure you'll agree with that. Yes, it was a violent end, but I think that there is in pagan religion an all-embracingness that doesn't in the end countenance pure opposites: it embraces the dark as well as the light; Kali has skulls around her neck and blood dripping from her teeth. I don't mean that Maya's people were now going to pick up arms and follow River and think that was OK, obviously they would not do that. River may well live to horribly regret what he did, as various people in the story already regretted the horrible things they had done - as Bird regretted killing the people in the nuclear power station. And yet was it wrong for him to do that at the time? The book doesn't exactly say so. It says he could mature from there, so he wouldn't do such a thing again, and so he would find a more effective way. Was it wrong for the weird young people in LA to kill the child killer? Madrone doesn't exactly say so. She doesn't judge them like that. It's a progression, a working with what people are and where they are at. So the greatest victories are sullied by horror - that's the nature of life. Doesn't that seem true to life? the wheel of life and death, the whole that encompasses everything. And yet that doesn't mean we can only sink back into cynicism and violence, because progress is possible, Bird can survive all the hell he is put through, Madrone can come back from her flirtation with death. Even the violent act that is done with good intentions can have some redeeming quality, though it will also have its negative consequences. The end of this story is just a lull - now will come the challenge of incorporating all these soldiers, socializing them in the new ways, and then dealing with the Stewards' next assault. Perhaps this time with less success, or more. Perhaps they can take the struggle to the enemy before the enemy attacks, by teaching the rebels down south how to use non-violent tactics. Things will go forward in the messy way that is human. That's one thing I like so much about the novel: in spite of its fantastic, magical, wish fulfillment elements, when it comes to the real test, it doesn't rely on some magical resolution of things - they don't all use mind power to disable the soldiers' guns, for example, which is what a lesser writer might have done. Now that would really have disappointed me: a stupidly magical happy ending. Instead they change the soldiers' minds, or enough of them to resist in the only way they knew: and thus to give the general the only lesson he could absorb. A dirty end. Perfect. There's more truth in paradox, than in pure logic or consistency, often. I feel that you are wanting some pure ending, and the vehemence with which you want it suggests that you are not as ready as Starhawk to work with the mess we have, and still to have the patience to pull good out of it. Why does it have to be all good or nothing? Why can't we make baby steps forward, stumbling and sometimes dancing? Do we have to dance all the time? I am suspicious of purist ideologues, who have to have things just so - it's not real. It's better that they have a messy, real ending to that part of their story. It gives them plenty to work on in the next part. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:30:09 -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: Dave Belden Subject: Re: Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <003f01c24ddb$ff748c80$61c0fea9@vistatech.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gwen asked: "Could someone help me out with why Starhawk felt the need to include this torture?" Personally I think that in the novel as a whole, and with Bird in particular, Starhawk was trying to be simultaneously a realist and hold out hope. She was trying to take the worst that nature and humans hand out, and show that it could be lived through and transcended. 'Realism' in literature is often taken to refer to writers who describe the worst of humanity. She is trying to go down as deep in the pit as they do and still come up with a hopeful way forward. Even a man, brutalized by men, can refuse to rape a girl. If, that is, he has been brought up right - it's a vote for the primacy of culture and against that of some supposed male raping instinct. Which is of course a classic left viewpoint, the human baby as innocent tabula rasa to be written on by culture, that has been receiving some heavy scientific hits recently. I don't think she thought that the suffering was redeeming him in any way - I don't see an ounce of that Christian concept in there. He was redeemed by his prior relationships with women (which made him unable to rape the girl), and to some extent by his refusal to see the soldiers as purely evil. He knows he is one of them; he has to become one of them to change them: it is his response to torture that changes them, not their torture that changes him - though he thinks otherwise at the time, seeing himself as a failure when in fact he is the key to success. If he wasn't tortured, broken, brought down to their level, and yet even then refused the rape, he would never have moved them or changed them. I think that's the reason she did it: to get in deep enough to the soldiers to change them. It's what makes their conversion plausible, to me. Otherwise, without something like that that shows human minds changing, it's all wishful thinking about the power of nonviolence. There is a kind of truly American optimism in Starhawk's determination to find even men redeemable in the worst of circumstances. And, Lee Anne, it is not achieved by women swooning at him or by promising sex with him afterwards. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:45:38 -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: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other books Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I am enjoying all the debate about this book. I am also thinking about other books portraying non-violent resistance. In particular I remember Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean. I don't think the all-female society ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail. But it was a long time ago that I read it, so I might be wrong. All of her books that I've read (most of them) deal with Quaker-inspired non-violence, and all are well written and good stories. I am also remembering some aspect of non-violent resistance in the Snow Queen, which we discussed in November 1998. That wasn't a big discussion topic, but I think there was an intelligence species that would not defend itself with violence. Any other depictions of non-violent response that show a realistic victory? Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:25:08 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: Re: Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_112.166d81c7.2a9d2c14_boundary" --part1_112.166d81c7.2a9d2c14_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, My take on non-violence in TFST is that it is shown as the only part way viable option for a small community against a militaristic empire. It is not shown as the only option - but as the most effective in the circumstances. Regardless of their morals it is not possible for this community to fight a guerrilla war. They are too ill equipped. Of course this novel is about the beauty of non-violence but I read it as relatively non-judgemental about violence in self defence... that it is accepted that many folk/ communities will choose small acts of violence because they have limited choices. However, for me, the central message for choosing non-violence is the "you can't get there from here" philosophy. It is peoples vision about the kind of society they wish to get to that dictates their options - If the city folk choose violence they will loose their society and therefore cease to exist as effectively as if they are conquered. This is why they act as they do. I feel that the end is a fragile kind of truce... that the greatest challenge comes next. Can this society absorb the lives of those it must now take in? the ex-soldiers... the ex-?rapists?. Will it's mutual aid be strong enough to allow the certain change that this will bring? Bird has been broken, many have died, the city has deep factional wounds, people are recovering from torture - This is not 'happy ever after' it is possibly, at best, a close and luck escape . Bye Rachel --part1_112.166d81c7.2a9d2c14_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

My take on non-violence in TFST is that it is shown as the only part way viable option for a small community against a militaristic empire. It is not shown as the only option - but as the most effective in the circumstances.
Regardless of their morals it is not possible for this community to fight a guerrilla war. They are too ill equipped.

Of course this novel is about the beauty of non-violence but I read it as relatively non-judgemental about violence in self defence... that it is accepted that many folk/ communities will choose small acts of violence because they have limited choices.

However, for me, the central message for choosing non-violence is the "you can't get there from here" philosophy. It is peoples vision about the kind of society they wish to get to that dictates their options - If the city folk choose violence they will loose their society and therefore cease to exist as effectively as if they are conquered. This is why they act as they do.

I feel that the end is a fragile kind of truce... that the greatest challenge comes next. Can this society absorb the lives of those it must now take in? the ex-soldiers... the ex-?rapists?. Will it's mutual aid be strong enough to allow the certain change that this will bring?
Bird has been broken, many have died, the city has deep factional wounds, people are recovering from torture - This is not 'happy ever after' it is possibly, at best, a close and luck escape .

Bye
Rachel --part1_112.166d81c7.2a9d2c14_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:34:24 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: Re: BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other bo... Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c1.25f3c572.2a9d2e40_boundary" --part1_c1.25f3c572.2a9d2e40_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer wrote: In particular I remember Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean. I don't think the all-female society ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail. - I felt that an interesting dillema is presented in door ito ocean. The women succeed because they cannot be easily tortured... they can choose to die at will... and are also factually aware of their re-incarnation. Two options not easily avalable to modern terrans! I feel that the torture of Bird in TFST is of huge importance to the book... Does anyone have any posts on non-violence and torture in contempoary conflicts ? Bye Rachel --part1_c1.25f3c572.2a9d2e40_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer wrote:

In particular I remember
Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean.  I don't think the all-female society
ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated
with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail.

- I felt that an interesting dillema is presented in door ito ocean.
The women succeed because they cannot be easily tortured... they can choose to die at will... and are also factually aware of their re-incarnation.
Two options not easily avalable to modern terrans!

I feel that the torture of Bird in TFST is of huge importance to the book...
Does anyone have any posts on non-violence and torture in contempoary conflicts ?

Bye
Rachel --part1_c1.25f3c572.2a9d2e40_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:08:10 -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: Dave Belden Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020826163925.00a80b80@www.leeanne.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lee Anne wrote: > And these are supposed to be "feminist" novels. By these > standards, the craven (or complicit) acquiescence of the > mass of Europeans to the slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, > homosexuals, and other ethnic and social minorities was > heroic humanitarianism; I'm not sure from your post whether you actually read Starhawk's novel. I don't think you could read the novel and imagine that she would have advocated acquiescing in Nazi slaughter. She's trying to imagine whether there could be a better way than fighting arms with arms: she gets half way there in TFST. She was trying to imagine whether a non-violent approach to something like Nazism could be written convincingly. They say 'politics is the art of the possible'. Does she make the 'conversion' of some of the soldiers look possible in her novel? That's the biggest question, to me. That they then pick up their guns and shoot is also what is 'possible' for them to do - this is where she chooses to be a realist rather than provider of a big magic solution. There is a lot of talk in her future city of whether to use violence or not, and one reason they do not is simply that they don't have the means: they chose to spend their time and money for 25 years building streams and vegetable plots and medicine, not armaments. Their tactic of bringing the soldiers back to their own humanity, works, and then gives them the means - the soldiers own guns. What more fitting and realistic end for an army than to turn on itself? I found the scenario plausible, whereas if they had taken up arms against the army and stayed at bullet's length from them, they could never have won. I don't find TFST to be at all the same as the stories about helpless heroines you talk about. Your scathing dismissal of Starhawk in the sentence, "Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch." is so off the mark that I wonder again if you actually read the book. On the other hand I fully go along with your comments about people who so readily throw over the civilization they have got, in favor of a putative better one. They don't seem to understand how hard it was to create even as poor a civilization as we have. This is my main problem with Starhawk's novel, as with Piercy's two. At times in her explanation of ideas Starhawk does come close to a kind of unrealistic nonviolence - places where she says violence never solved anything - but the actual plot of the novel doesn't in the end go there. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:53:30 +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: Door into Ocean WAScBDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other bo... Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C24E81.25AF7A40" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C24E81.25AF7A40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Its not so much choosing to die at will- they can go into "white state" (can't remmeber if that is the exact term) in which they shut down bodily functions etc, until the traumatic period is over. IN fact, sorry- they can not *help* going into this state. It may be triggered by emotional shock, like the death of a friend. The women (I don't really think of them as women) version of non-violent resistance- they all go to the invaders boat to "witness", to sit around and watch them doing the wrong thing- its their version of enforcing morality... the invaders shoot into the crowd... the sharers have a numerical superiority which allows them to keep replacing the dead. The book ended very suddenly and quickly at this point, I can't even remember what resolved the situation. Maire -----Original Message----- From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Rachel Wild Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 5:34 AM To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other bo... Jennifer wrote: In particular I remember Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean. I don't think the all-female society ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail. - I felt that an interesting dillema is presented in door ito ocean. The women succeed because they cannot be easily tortured... they can choose to die at will... and are also factually aware of their re-incarnation. Two options not easily avalable to modern terrans! I feel that the torture of Bird in TFST is of huge importance to the book... Does anyone have any posts on non-violence and torture in contempoary conflicts ? Bye Rachel ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C24E81.25AF7A40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Its = not so much=20 choosing to die at will- they can go into "white state" (can't remmeber = if that=20 is the exact term) in which they shut down bodily functions etc, until = the=20 traumatic period is over. IN fact, sorry- they can not *help* going into = this=20 state.  It may be triggered by emotional shock, like the death of a = friend.=20
The = women (I=20 don't really think of them as women) version of non-violent resistance- = they all=20 go to the invaders boat to "witness", to sit around and watch them doing = the=20 wrong thing- its their version of enforcing morality...  the = invaders shoot=20 into the crowd...  the sharers have a numerical superiority which = allows=20 them to keep replacing the dead. 
The = book ended=20 very suddenly and quickly at this point,  I can't even remember = what=20 resolved the situation.
Maire
-----Original Message-----
From: friendly STRICTLY = ON TOPIC=20 discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia=20 [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Rachel = Wild
Sent:=20 Wednesday, 28 August 2002 5:34 AM
To:=20 FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth = Sacred=20 Thing, and non-violent resistance in other = bo...

Jennifer wrote:

In particular I = remember
Joan=20 Slonczewski's Door into Ocean.  I don't think the all-female=20 society
ever responded with violence in that story, though I got = really=20 frustrated
with it after a while, and I think they did finally=20 prevail.

- I felt that an interesting dillema is presented in = door ito=20 ocean.
The women succeed because they cannot be easily tortured... = they=20 can choose to die at will... and are also factually aware of their=20 re-incarnation.
Two options not easily avalable to modern = terrans!

I=20 feel that the torture of Bird in TFST is of huge importance to the = book...=20
Does anyone have any posts on non-violence and torture in = contempoary=20 conflicts ?

Bye
Rachel = ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C24E81.25AF7A40-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:17:48 -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: BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed It looks like I finished *The Fifth Sacred Thing* just in time for the revived discussion. This was a slow, rather laborious read for me. I didn't dislike it enough to give up on it, but I can't say that I enjoyed it either. To start with the positive, I will say that the settings were vivid and well differentiated: San Francisco clean, green and lively; the hills outside LA dry and dusty; the toxic currents of the ocean flowing through drowned city streets. There were sections, particularly in the latter half of the book, that were involving as vignettes. Madrone's sexual encounter with Hijohn and its aftermath had the ring of truth, as did Bird's imprisonment and torture by an army with the means of persuasion but very few pertinent questions to ask. Like Dave, I also appreciated the descriptions of the often boring and overlong process of consensus-based meetings. The principle is important, but there's no denying that there's a price in time and energy for those involved. I appreciated the author's honesty about that. I did not appreciate her obvious bias toward a manufactured goddess religion. She has her beliefs, and she is entitled to them, but I wish she hadn't a) made a show of tolerating other religions while making sure hers always came out on top and b) been so literal and elitist about it. The scene in chapter 6 in which Bird leads the Monsters in a ritual was the worst example of this. The Monsters aspire to be witches, but they haven't had the teaching they need; Bird leads them through a precise sequence of actions that results in their first sight of a circle of protection. He thinks, "there was something touching about these halting, awkward attempts to keep the rites without really understanding how to raise and channel power." (p. 96) Could the condescension be laid on any thicker? How much better is this than any other religion that reserves "power" only for those who know the proper rites? This is just one example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem that I ran across several times in this book. Another is the approach to polyamory. The author seems to want to believe in it and to want everyone else to believe in it, but her portrayal lacks substance. Bird and Madrone's partners -- Nita, Holybear, and Sage -- are so minimally characterized that they come across as mere placeholders. Sandy is more interesting, but is unfortunately dead, as are Maya's old loves, Johanna and Rio. All the other sexual partners are strictly temporary. I realize that depicting non-exclusive sexual relationships is in itself pretty unusual and plenty unsettling for the average reader. But as I understand it, polyamory (meaning "many loves"), is about a lot more than having sex with a bunch of different people. It is about forming loving, close relationships with more than one person. For all the sex Madrone and Bird have with other people (and there's a lot of it), their romantic energy is clearly directed at one another only. Separate but related is the depiction of primary homosexual relationships. Did anyone else find it odd that Bird's relationship with Littlejohn, which had been going on for years, ended as soon as Bird regained his memory and sense of self? And that Madrone witnessed Littlejohn's death and found it so unimportant that she never even mentioned it to Bird? (Convenient Deaths of Gay Characters 101) Madrone's relations with other women also struck me as strange. Both Isis and Sara are characterized as possessive and controlling -- and Madrone thinks they should be introduced! How does it make logical sense to match up two people who both want to be in the driver's seat? But wait, I think I get it. They're both LESBIANS, those rare and difficult creatures who hate men and want sex only with others of their kind... They're meant for each other! (That's sarcasm, for those who can't hear my voice.) The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the characters gave a thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the manner of their victory. The invasion and occupation storyline was seriously flawed in other ways as well. I kept asking myself, "what is this army's purpose?" They spent weeks dithering around with torture, a few killings here and there, damming the streams and damming them again after the previous dams were blown up, etc. Call me cold-blooded, but I could see no reason in the world why they didn't start by gunning down every single person in San Francisco and THEN begin work on the dams. Their behavior was monstrous enough in other ways that a massacre of the already depleted citizenry -- BEFORE their troops started to mingle with it -- seems just their style. Awfully convenient for the story that the general didn't think of it! Well, this has gone on long enough. Consider this just another piece of the whole, and hopefully not too bitter... ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:18 +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: BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020826204330.02913458@impop.bellatlantic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anyone read the prequel to fifth? I think its called.. Walking to Ocean, though I may well be remembering wrong. It seems rather autobiographical. Maire > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Janice E. Dawley > Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 2:18 PM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing > > > It looks like I finished *The Fifth Sacred Thing* just in time for the > revived discussion. > > This was a slow, rather laborious read for me. I didn't dislike it enough > to give up on it, but I can't say that I enjoyed it either. To start with > the positive, I will say that the settings were vivid and well > differentiated: San Francisco clean, green and lively; the hills > outside LA > dry and dusty; the toxic currents of the ocean flowing through > drowned city > streets. There were sections, particularly in the latter half of the book, > that were involving as vignettes. Madrone's sexual encounter with Hijohn > and its aftermath had the ring of truth, as did Bird's imprisonment and > torture by an army with the means of persuasion but very few pertinent > questions to ask. Like Dave, I also appreciated the descriptions of the > often boring and overlong process of consensus-based meetings. The > principle is important, but there's no denying that there's a > price in time > and energy for those involved. I appreciated the author's honesty > about that. > > I did not appreciate her obvious bias toward a manufactured goddess > religion. She has her beliefs, and she is entitled to them, but I wish she > hadn't a) made a show of tolerating other religions while making sure hers > always came out on top and b) been so literal and elitist about it. The > scene in chapter 6 in which Bird leads the Monsters in a ritual was the > worst example of this. The Monsters aspire to be witches, but they haven't > had the teaching they need; Bird leads them through a precise sequence of > actions that results in their first sight of a circle of protection. He > thinks, "there was something touching about these halting, > awkward attempts > to keep the rites without really understanding how to raise and channel > power." (p. 96) Could the condescension be laid on any thicker? How much > better is this than any other religion that reserves "power" only > for those > who know the proper rites? > > This is just one example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem > that I ran across several times in this book. Another is the approach to > polyamory. The author seems to want to believe in it and to want everyone > else to believe in it, but her portrayal lacks substance. Bird and > Madrone's partners -- Nita, Holybear, and Sage -- are so minimally > characterized that they come across as mere placeholders. Sandy is more > interesting, but is unfortunately dead, as are Maya's old loves, Johanna > and Rio. All the other sexual partners are strictly temporary. I realize > that depicting non-exclusive sexual relationships is in itself pretty > unusual and plenty unsettling for the average reader. But as I understand > it, polyamory (meaning "many loves"), is about a lot more than having sex > with a bunch of different people. It is about forming loving, close > relationships with more than one person. For all the sex Madrone and Bird > have with other people (and there's a lot of it), their romantic energy is > clearly directed at one another only. > > Separate but related is the depiction of primary homosexual relationships. > Did anyone else find it odd that Bird's relationship with > Littlejohn, which > had been going on for years, ended as soon as Bird regained his memory and > sense of self? And that Madrone witnessed Littlejohn's death and found it > so unimportant that she never even mentioned it to Bird? > (Convenient Deaths > of Gay Characters 101) Madrone's relations with other women also struck me > as strange. Both Isis and Sara are characterized as possessive and > controlling -- and Madrone thinks they should be introduced! How does it > make logical sense to match up two people who both want to be in the > driver's seat? But wait, I think I get it. They're both LESBIANS, those > rare and difficult creatures who hate men and want sex only with others of > their kind... They're meant for each other! (That's sarcasm, for those who > can't hear my voice.) > > The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem > was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with > Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the > author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being > realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did > in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the > characters gave a > thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of > violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages > engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back > into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the > manner of their victory. > > The invasion and occupation storyline was seriously flawed in > other ways as > well. I kept asking myself, "what is this army's purpose?" They > spent weeks > dithering around with torture, a few killings here and there, damming the > streams and damming them again after the previous dams were blown up, etc. > Call me cold-blooded, but I could see no reason in the world why they > didn't start by gunning down every single person in San Francisco and THEN > begin work on the dams. Their behavior was monstrous enough in other ways > that a massacre of the already depleted citizenry -- BEFORE their troops > started to mingle with it -- seems just their style. Awfully > convenient for > the story that the general didn't think of it! > > Well, this has gone on long enough. Consider this just another > piece of the > whole, and hopefully not too bitter... > > ----- > Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT > http://therem.net/ > Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender > "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, > with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:28:31 +0100 Reply-To: "donna.fancourt" Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: "donna.fancourt" Subject: Re: BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I have read the prequel to TFST, called Walking to Mercury, which is the story of Maya's early years, her spiritualisation and politicisation. I think Maire is right, it seems quite autobiographical, from what I've read of Starhawk's history. It's a good read, Starhawk is a good writer I think, but the novel doesn't have the visionary quality or depth of TFST. I have really enjoyed the posts on the novel, very thought-provoking - thank you one and all. Especially liked Dave's recent long post, and also Janice's bitter-sweet take on the book - nicely done! I have always had a slight problem with Starhawk's depiction of homosexual relationships - she says that she accepts them in her writings, but in practice always writes about exclusive monogamous relationships, and seems to find describing lesbian/gay relationships difficult. Clearly, she is hetero, and a lot of her writing seems to draw on her own experiences, her own desires and fears, and it seems to be too much of a leap for her to imagine same sex relationships. Thanks again for all the posts, all the best, Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: Maire To: Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing > Has anyone read the prequel to fifth? I think its called.. Walking to Ocean, > though I may well be remembering wrong. It seems rather autobiographical. > Maire > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Janice E. Dawley > > Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 2:18 PM > > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > > Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing > > > > > > It looks like I finished *The Fifth Sacred Thing* just in time for the > > revived discussion. > > > > This was a slow, rather laborious read for me. I didn't dislike it enough > > to give up on it, but I can't say that I enjoyed it either. To start with > > the positive, I will say that the settings were vivid and well > > differentiated: San Francisco clean, green and lively; the hills > > outside LA > > dry and dusty; the toxic currents of the ocean flowing through > > drowned city > > streets. There were sections, particularly in the latter half of the book, > > that were involving as vignettes. Madrone's sexual encounter with Hijohn > > and its aftermath had the ring of truth, as did Bird's imprisonment and > > torture by an army with the means of persuasion but very few pertinent > > questions to ask. Like Dave, I also appreciated the descriptions of the > > often boring and overlong process of consensus-based meetings. The > > principle is important, but there's no denying that there's a > > price in time > > and energy for those involved. I appreciated the author's honesty > > about that. > > > > I did not appreciate her obvious bias toward a manufactured goddess > > religion. She has her beliefs, and she is entitled to them, but I wish she > > hadn't a) made a show of tolerating other religions while making sure hers > > always came out on top and b) been so literal and elitist about it. The > > scene in chapter 6 in which Bird leads the Monsters in a ritual was the > > worst example of this. The Monsters aspire to be witches, but they haven't > > had the teaching they need; Bird leads them through a precise sequence of > > actions that results in their first sight of a circle of protection. He > > thinks, "there was something touching about these halting, > > awkward attempts > > to keep the rites without really understanding how to raise and channel > > power." (p. 96) Could the condescension be laid on any thicker? How much > > better is this than any other religion that reserves "power" only > > for those > > who know the proper rites? > > > > This is just one example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem > > that I ran across several times in this book. Another is the approach to > > polyamory. The author seems to want to believe in it and to want everyone > > else to believe in it, but her portrayal lacks substance. Bird and > > Madrone's partners -- Nita, Holybear, and Sage -- are so minimally > > characterized that they come across as mere placeholders. Sandy is more > > interesting, but is unfortunately dead, as are Maya's old loves, Johanna > > and Rio. All the other sexual partners are strictly temporary. I realize > > that depicting non-exclusive sexual relationships is in itself pretty > > unusual and plenty unsettling for the average reader. But as I understand > > it, polyamory (meaning "many loves"), is about a lot more than having sex > > with a bunch of different people. It is about forming loving, close > > relationships with more than one person. For all the sex Madrone and Bird > > have with other people (and there's a lot of it), their romantic energy is > > clearly directed at one another only. > > > > Separate but related is the depiction of primary homosexual relationships. > > Did anyone else find it odd that Bird's relationship with > > Littlejohn, which > > had been going on for years, ended as soon as Bird regained his memory and > > sense of self? And that Madrone witnessed Littlejohn's death and found it > > so unimportant that she never even mentioned it to Bird? > > (Convenient Deaths > > of Gay Characters 101) Madrone's relations with other women also struck me > > as strange. Both Isis and Sara are characterized as possessive and > > controlling -- and Madrone thinks they should be introduced! How does it > > make logical sense to match up two people who both want to be in the > > driver's seat? But wait, I think I get it. They're both LESBIANS, those > > rare and difficult creatures who hate men and want sex only with others of > > their kind... They're meant for each other! (That's sarcasm, for those who > > can't hear my voice.) > > > > The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem > > was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with > > Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the > > author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being > > realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did > > in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the > > characters gave a > > thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of > > violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages > > engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back > > into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the > > manner of their victory. > > > > The invasion and occupation storyline was seriously flawed in > > other ways as > > well. I kept asking myself, "what is this army's purpose?" They > > spent weeks > > dithering around with torture, a few killings here and there, damming the > > streams and damming them again after the previous dams were blown up, etc. > > Call me cold-blooded, but I could see no reason in the world why they > > didn't start by gunning down every single person in San Francisco and THEN > > begin work on the dams. Their behavior was monstrous enough in other ways > > that a massacre of the already depleted citizenry -- BEFORE their troops > > started to mingle with it -- seems just their style. Awfully > > convenient for > > the story that the general didn't think of it! > > > > Well, this has gone on long enough. Consider this just another > > piece of the > > whole, and hopefully not too bitter... > > > > ----- > > Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT > > http://therem.net/ > > Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender > > "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, > > with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:01:21 -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: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:08 PM 8/27/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >I'm not sure from your post whether you actually read Starhawk's novel. I >don't think you could read the novel and imagine that she would have >advocated acquiescing in Nazi slaughter. Contrariwise, I've read *all* of Starhawk's oeuvre. Not liking the implications of a "utopia" is not the same as not reading it. It's quite possible, believe it or not, for two people to read the same work and carry away entirely different things. It's even possible for a person of normal intelligence to read a book and come to opposite conclusions from your own. Nor is it unlikely for women (and peaceful men) to successfully engage a well-equipped army, despite the implausible assertion to the contrary in FST, no matter how ill-prepared they might be for war. While placing flowers in the barrels of guns may be an effective protest against troops who are sworn ultimately to protect you, it doesn't work all that well against a real foe. Our own history is filled with both successes and failures of non-violent resistance, and the Black Panthers were, in their way, every bit as important in breaking the racist quasi-apartheid system that existed in the USA through the Fifties as was Martin Luther King, Jr.. The limitation of non-violent resistance is the will to violence of the oppressor. Our own experience with the American Indians and other native peoples proves that, if your ultimate aim is extermination and conquest, non-violent resistance such as the Ghost Dance movement is only an invitation to be slaughtered and ghettoized. Against the protests which supposedly ended the Viet Nam war one must place Kent State, where the Ohio National Guard ran up against the court of public opinion and demonstrated the limits (and folly) of the use of US military power against our own population, and the continuing struggle of the guerilla forces in Viet Nam itself, which had essentially fought the US forces to a standstill. It became obvious that the only way we could win *that* war was by the methods we used against the American Indians, extermination. Since we couldn't quite bring ourselves to do that politically, the protests made a convenient excuse to remove ourselves from the conflict "with honor" by declaring unilaterally that the conflict was basically the problem of the puppet government that we ourselves had installed and running away. Whatever one may say about our paranoid unwisdom and evil inclination in provoking this war, we violated the principles of fealty and honor in our prosecution of it. In enterprise of martial kind, When there was any fighting, He led his regiment from behind (He found it less exciting). But when away his regiment ran, His place was at the fore, O- That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman, The Duke of Plaza-Toro! - W.S. Gilbert, Armies are able to enforce their will only through the acquiescence of the populace they move among. Our own experience during our alienation from the British demonstrates this; the British were very powerful and skilled at war with professional soldiers and equipment yet failed miserably to contain a relatively undisciplined revolutionary force. Likewise, our own experience in Vietnam amply exemplifies the necessity of either convincing the inhabitants of an area to cooperate with the army or obliterating them entirely. There is no middle ground. Genocide directed against entire populations is frowned on nowadays, despite ample historical precedent, so modern armies, absent a compliant population, attempt to terrorize them into submission, a tactic that usually ends up corrupting the army a government would like to be able to depend on. Once the army becomes used to attacking civilians, their own fellow citizens, rather than enemy soldiers, there's nothing to keep them from attacking their masters and they become an armed gang rather than soldiers, the de facto (and sometimes actual) rulers of the nation they are supposed to serve. War can only be truly waged against armies. Guerilla warfare is destructive of any society within which it exists because it necessarily seduces the army into believing that everyone is the enemy, the sure road to eventual disaster. Starhawk knows this on one level. In Dreaming the Dark and in her actual political work, she's repeatedly demonstrated that armed forces depend on terror. When you fight them, and make no mistake, Starhawk *has* fought them, albeit without weapons, they *must* either *use* their arms or surrender. In her demonstrations at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, she (and many others) were able to simply walk into the power plant over the fields, after getting through the fence, because the "security" forces basically depended on people being nice. Enough people who *aren't* nice can overwhelm (or go around) *any* armed defence if the forces being resisted aren't intent on extermination. There aren't enough soldiers in the world to protect everything. Much has to be left to the innate goodwill and peaceableness of most humans. But sometimes sterner measures are both warranted and necessary. In the Warsaw uprising during WWII, the women wanted to escape into the woods and engage the Nazis as guerilla fighters, probably a realistic assessment of their collective capabilities. The men, on the other hand, wanted to stay and protect their homes and all the populace, perhaps foolishly thinking that a poorly-equipped ragtag force could withstand the disciplined military might of the Reich in open siege. As it happened, the men's plan prevailed and the resistance failed, perhaps through hubris. All were killed or captured and all but a handful died in the camps. But the intention of both was to at least attempt to save some of those who could not otherwise save themselves: children, old people, the infirm. Whether or not they succeeded is truly irrelevant to the nobility of their purpose. They made the Nazi aggression visible instead of "civilized" and "efficient." The few Jews of Wasaw were able to resist the Germans for a month while Poland itself fell in two weeks and France capitulated in three weeks. Not bad for a "pathetic" bunch of starving members of an "inferior" race. There is of course a place for dialog, for moral persuasion, for seeking to reconcile quarrelling belligerents, but when the christians in LA attack the free pagan peoples of SF with biological agents and an army, something rather stronger than moral suasion is required. In real life, there is no "reasoning" with hateful bigots. Just as the story goes about training mules, you have to get their attention first. While the blissful SF witches were merrily having group (bisexual) sex and chanting, the LA meanies were persecuting and murdering *other* people. This sort of uncivilized behavior calls for a response from moral people. We are not so unconnected with each other that murder and injustice in one part of the world doesn't affect all of us. We must act or be diminished by every death we could have thwarted, every torture victim we could have rescued, every innocent wrongfully imprisoned, every suffering child we could have comforted. In fact, tolerating oppression taints all our lives, just as US toleration of slavery tainted and made ignoble all our pretensions of justice and freedom for "all." It was a poison that ate at our very heart and Starhawk does humanity an injustice to imagine that a loving democratic society can live next door to a totalitarian without harm. During the devastating American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was repeatedly urged to make peace with the Confederacy. He refused, wisely as it turned out. Only a decisive military victory could eradicate the cancer of slavery from US society. "Broken eggs can not be mended," he said, and persevered despite the tremendous toll in lives and maimings on both sides and the enormous cost in property and treasure. There was no "reasoning" with the Nazis, no possibility of reconciliation short of war once the killings started. While the Western Powers talked and made nice, the German State was perfecting its techniques of civil murder on the disabled, on "crippled" children, on the "mentally defective." It was a short step from there to "cleansing" the Reich of "undesirables." To our collective shame, as long as Hitler "only" murdered "his own" citizens, we stood aside and let the slaughter continue. We even refused to bomb the railways leading to the death camps, possibly figuring that resources expended in murdering civilians could not be used to fight the war. It is perhaps unwittingly revealing that the first attack on SF took place in the form of a deadly disease. For indeed the heart of SF society was diseased already; the LA fanatics only made that disease, that invisible worm, visible which had already been working to destroy its secret heart. And the co-option of half the invading army is not only wildly improbable, but the idea of having half the army attack the other offends any sense of justice, even sanity. Is the LA army filled (or half-filled) with traitors? How many historic armies have forgotten all sense of discipline and military order and turned their guns on themselves? Any? Or is this a sort of passive-aggressive James Bondian "slaughter of the faceless minions," whose humanity is so diminished that hundreds die as mere decoration to the "action scenes," conveniently allowing the "real hero" to save the day at the last second while the fiendish doomsday device ticks ominously away? What is it about the loyal half of the LA Army that makes them worthy of death? What makes it possible to imagine that, if only we visualize strongly enough, we can have the results of military violence and bravery without doing any of the work? "Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream." - Amos Demonstrations and sit-ins were only part of the process which led to the first civil rights accomplishments. We mustn't forget that the demonstrations had no effect until the Federal government was moved to send in the troops. Hatred cannot be eradicated by prayers nor bigots persuaded by soft words. You have to get their attention first. It's immoral to depend on military power, on the police power of the state, and at the same time be contemptuous of it, to refuse to support it or participate in it. Starhawk postulates a society in which no one (who counts) has to dirty their hands with bloody deeds, because their magical powers will (somehow) cause their enemies to destroy themselves "untouched by human hands." How supremely arrogant. How despicably craven. How sublimely contemptuous of human life. How terminally sad. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:27:06 +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: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just finished TFST - had not read any Starhawk before, as I feared it either would be too sweet, or too angry, for my taste. (ooh, picky, or WHAT?) It was a great big pleasant surprise to find it such a cracking good read. It's always a joy to find an author who has ideas AND can write. It's also been really interesting to see the BDG perspectives - this has been a particularly enlightening discussion for me, so far, as I admit that the contradiction/paradox of the non-violent ideal and the actual (violent) resolution of the plot wasn't something that leapt out at me when I read it. (Bit of a 'Duh', maybe, but it's sometimes nice to have the light switched on for you when you are - unknowingly - sitting there in the dark. It's one of the cool things about BDG.) Leaping in to the discussion between Lee-Ann and Dave: Dave sez in response to Lee-Ann's posting: Your scathing dismissal of Starhawk in the sentence, "Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch." is so off the mark that I wonder again if you actually read the book. Well, I agree with Dave this doesn't really ring a bell with me with respect to TFST: the heroine does get to fuck the hero, and lots of other people, too. Also, there doesn't seem to be any denial in TFST that the hero and heroine ever existed - not sure where this is coming from, with respect to TFST. However, Lee-Ann's comment made me laugh - and it's so well stated that I would kind of like it to be true. Er, perhaps what Lee-Ann said applies to Forrest better than it does to TFST? Regarding heros and heroines - the book seems to be a bit of an ensemble piece, told from different perspectives of the players in the ensemble. For the main characters, who are all, in their way, heros, they are treated in enough depth to enable the reader to experience the narrative by experiencing the characters' experiences. However, I didn't really find that I got underneath any of their skins, and looked out through their eyes. I think maybe this is what's at the heart of what's bothering people about the book's treatment of polyamoury. The best-drawn long-term relationship was between Madrone and Maya, I think. The other relationships - whether or not they were polyamourous - seemed a bit pro forma, the formula being: misunderstanding, roll in hay, resolution, (repeat, with a variable number of characters). Perhaps this is an example of C.J. Cherryh's distinction between plot driven versus character driven? To me this book was more plot driven. (Also I liked the landscape a lot....but I have read very few landscape-driven novels ;-). cheers, Heather ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:16:32 -0500 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: Edie Bell Subject: Re: BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020826204330.02913458@impop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_63524132==_.ALT" --=====================_63524132==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:17 AM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: >The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem >was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with >Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the >author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being >realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did >in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the characters gave a >thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of >violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages >engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back >into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the >manner of their victory. (my emphasis) Exactly. I got the feeling that I was supposed to carry away the notion that non-violent resistance works, that the San Fran community was successful in their creation of a non-violent community. But my opinion on it is that they failed. And they didn't even regret how they were able to maintain their "non-violent" society. In fact, instead of actually converting the soldiers, they just convinced them that their cause was a better one to fight for. And Dave, I certainly have no objections to the idea of showing baby steps in creating a non-violent society, as it will take a very long time, and cost a lot of lives. (That would make for a very long book!) But the ending to the book showed no indication that an examination of the massacre of the soldiers was going to take place, nor that they even acknowledged that they still had a lot of work to do to forge a true non-violent society. As far as the community was concerned, they won, and that was that. And that is what bothers me more than anything else, the utter lack of reflection on the violence that was committed in the name of the Utopian community. That is why I see the message as being hypocritical and it made the book very disappointing for me. --=====================_63524132==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:17 AM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:

The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem
was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with
Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the
author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being
realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did
in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the characters gave a
thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of
violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages
engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back
into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the
manner of their victory.  (my emphasis)

Exactly.  I got the feeling that I was supposed to carry away the notion that non-violent resistance works, that the San Fran community was successful in their creation of a non-violent community.  But my opinion on it is that they failed.  And they didn't even regret how they were able to maintain their "non-violent" society.  In fact, instead of actually converting the soldiers, they just convinced them that their cause was a better one to fight for.

And Dave, I certainly have no objections to the idea of showing baby steps in creating a non-violent society, as it will take a very long time, and cost a lot of lives.  (That would make for a very long book!)  But the ending to the book showed no indication that an examination of the massacre of the soldiers was going to take place, nor that they even acknowledged that they still had a lot of work to do to forge a true non-violent society.  As far as the community was concerned, they won, and that was that.  And that is what bothers me more than anything else, the utter lack of reflection on the violence that was committed in the name of the Utopian community.  That is why I see the message as being hypocritical and it made the book very disappointing for me.


--=====================_63524132==_.ALT-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:45:33 -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: Rosa Leah Subject: Re: BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: feministsf-lit@uic.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Edie Bell wrote: > Exactly. I got the feeling that I was supposed to carry away the notion > that non-violent resistance works, that the San Fran community was > successful in their creation of a non-violent community. But my opinion on > it is that they failed. I have to say, that while the end of the non-violent approach may have been dissatisfying, there were images that really captured my attention. In particular, the family who approached Ohnine to witness about the family member he'd killed, and as he killed each in turn, they continued to witness... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly inspiring. I wasn't as disappointed by the ending as others, in part, I think, because I really saw the community as a community of individuals. Although they used consensus decision-making, some people who disagreed went their own way. So the community, as a whole, might choose non-violence when some people in the community would choose otherwise. > And they didn't even regret how they were able to maintain their > "non-violent" society. In fact, instead of actually converting the > soldiers, they just convinced them that their cause was a better one > to fight for. I would think it would take a lot longer to convince the soldiers that non-violent resistence was better than fighting than it would to convince them that this is a better society/cause. This seems, to me, like a realistic first step. I do agree that the SF community could have acknowledged how this went against their ideals, but it didn't strike me as a total breakdown as it did others. > And that is what bothers me more than anything else, the utter lack of > reflection on the violence that was committed in the name of the > Utopian community. I definitely agree with this. Rosa, delurking briefly :) And why should night and day be so radically divided? Is there anyone for whom loving and thinking are lived as different beginnings? Would I have to spend my days with the one and my nights with the other? -- Luce Irigaray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:06:57 -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: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <00ff01c24e75$324ad3a0$4b0d0150@hashome> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:27 AM 8/28/02 +0100, Heather Stark wrote: >Well, I agree with Dave this doesn't really ring a bell with me with respect >to TFST: the heroine does get to fuck the hero, and lots of other people, >too. Also, there doesn't seem to be any denial in TFST that the hero and >heroine ever existed - not sure where this is coming from, with respect to >TFST. However, Lee-Ann's comment made me laugh - and it's so well stated >that I would kind of like it to be true. Er, perhaps what Lee-Ann said >applies to Forrest better than it does to TFST? It is, but the real "heroes" of the book are the traitorous soldiers who fire on their comrades. Most of the sexual shenanigans occur between those who, in my admittedly boring and mundane way of looking at things, contribute little to the real outcome besides "good vibes." So, although it's especially true of Forrest, who writes a consciously lesbian utopia (and let's applaud the attempt, however flawed by Forrest's limitations as a writer and observer of human nature), it's also true but more subtly of Starhawk. By positing that the workings of magic (and magicians) are the real cause of the SF "victory," she denies the efficacy of purely physical human endeavor. This is what I mean when I said that she, like Forrest, denies that the (male) heroes existed. To be fair, she is no worse than "mainstream" religious people who posit that *G-d* won this or that war, or rescued these or those people from disaster, or took note of the fall of this or that sparrow. But G-d and Goddess both seem to be terribly ineffectual in real life, and seem to function rather more like Mr. Magoo than powerful divine personages who actually give a damn about what happens to *any* individual or group. I take that back, since Mr. Magoo actually *means* well. What I meant to say was that the whole divine gang of them behave more like the Three Stooges than even a moderately beneficent human being. Forrest's book is a particularly clear example of denial of any agency to other than spiritual practice, and I will post a short review of the work to the off-topic list if anyone is interested. (Well, short by *my* standards at least... ;-) ) I disagree that the said sexual shenanigans had much to do with my profound dislike of the book; I've seen "polyamory" done well and far more believably, albeit that in my observation and experience it works far better in theory than in practice, and as part of an imagined future I'm in favor of exploring possibilities to see what results might ensue. What I do object to is failure of authorial imagination that makes the results seem flat and unlikely, which seems to be the case with Starhawk's work to judge from my own reaction and that of many on the list. I personally find it far too difficult to fully engage with more than one person on an intimate adult level but, what the heck, I'm willing to posit that there are those so gifted in relationships and so saintly in their personal lives that this is *possible* despite my own personal encounters with the failed marriages and partnerships which seem to inevitably follow. The only situations I'm aware of in which "polyamory" seems to work is that of patriarchal polygamy, in which the "master" essentially owns his wives, whose expectations do not seem to include full agency or personhood, and a few rare instances of polyandry, in which the actual system seems also patriarchal and consists of joint ownership by brothers of one wife, more than one being too expensive to support in the local economy. In neither case does *love* have much to do with it. What I've actually *seen* in so-called "polyamorous" relationships is usually one charismatic philanderer who manages to string along several dupes or victims. When the victims finally realize that they've been caught up in someone else's power trip, the relationships dissolve and the core instigator moves on to another series of shallow flirtations and callow sexual conquests disguised as the "next step in the evolution of human potential." But then I've probably lived too long to be less than cynical and I can't remember ever being quite as starry-eyed as belief in such a system would require. Quite probably there exist astonishing counterexamples that I, unluckily, haven't happened to run across of loving triads, quadrads, and n-ads who have grown old together in loving harmony and gracious mutual admiration and consideration. I would have loved to see Starhawk provide an example of how such a system would work in actuality, or even benign plural serial relationships such as posited by a writer whose name I disremember. Perhaps someone can help me to overcome my temporary page swapping fault. The concept was a group of bio-engineered people who had eidetic memories, were partially night-blind, and were so lowly fertile that it was necessary to engage in complicated relationship "braids" in which the "in-siblings" and "out-siblings" mated and partnerships never lasted beyond the birth of one child. Their language was multi-valued, with meanings varying depending on "aspect," which in the case of names was a secret shared only with one's lover. A key plot point was the acquisition of a star map which would, when combined with the navigator's memory of the night sky, enable three-dimensional visualization of the surrounding stars. I swear, the name is on the tip of my tongue... At 10:45 AM 8/28/02 -0400, Rosa Leah wrote: >I have to say, that while the end of the non-violent approach may have >been dissatisfying, there were images that really captured my attention. >In particular, the family who approached Ohnine to witness about the >family member he'd killed, and as he killed each in turn, they continued >to witness... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly >inspiring. I personally found it nauseating. *Someone* should have taken into their pretty little "superior consciousness" to whack Ohnine upside the head and *save* some of the precious lives he took. While it's nice that right-thinking people in Starhawk's world have personal experience of the reality of reincarnation, those whose experience includes only the sure knowledge of this one existence might be forgiven their primitive attachment to their limited Earthly lives. Starhawk's position on this is also inconsistent. Nuclear power plants and the various wars she works actively against are mere blips in the cosmic evolution of soul consciousness, affording ample opportunities for karmic development and the resolution of life lessons. Why on Earth should one become exercised about ephemeral issues like nuclear waste, which, after all, can *only* kill people, when spiritual matters are so much more meaningful and important? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:06:29 -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: Rosa Leah Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing [and polyamory] Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020828095703.02882030@www.leeanne.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > The only situations I'm aware of in which > "polyamory" seems to work is that of patriarchal polygamy, in which the > "master" essentially owns his wives, whose expectations do not seem > to include full agency or personhood, and a few rare instances of > polyandry, in which the actual system seems also patriarchal and > consists of joint ownership by brothers of one wife, more than one > being too expensive to support in the local economy. In neither case > does *love* have much to do with it. A lot of practitioners of polyamory would probably argue that patriarchal polygamy or polyandry aren't really "polyamory", since the roots of the word include "amory", meaning love :) That said, I tend to go on the theory that if someone says s/he is polyamorous, s/he probably is, at least for the purpose of discussion. Although Starhawk doesn't give us a fully developed multi-person marriage in FST, she hints at it, which, since the book is pretty ambitious already, is far. It does shortchange the idea of a fully developed alternative relationship model, but, then, this isn't a book ABOUT polyamory. > What I've actually *seen* in so-called "polyamorous" relationships > is usually one charismatic philanderer who manages to string along > several dupes or victims. FWIW, this isn't what I've seen in polyamorous relationships, either first- or second-hand. I'm not sure how on-topic further discussion of polyamory is, but I'm happy to talk about it more, either on or off list. Rosa And why should night and day be so radically divided? Is there anyone for whom loving and thinking are lived as different beginnings? Would I have to spend my days with the one and my nights with the other? -- Luce Irigaray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:20:25 +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: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing 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 > plural serial relationships such as posited by a writer whose > name I disremember. Perhaps someone can help me to > overcome my temporary page swapping fault. The concept > was a group of bio-engineered people who had eidetic > memories, were partially night-blind, and were so lowly > fertile that it was necessary to engage in complicated > relationship "braids" in which the "in-siblings" and > "out-siblings" mated and partnerships never lasted beyond > the birth of one child. Their language was multi-valued, > with meanings varying depending on "aspect," which > in the case of names was a secret shared only with > one's lover. M A Foster, the 'Ler' trilogy, consisting of The Gameplayers of Zan, The Warriors of Dawn, and The Day of the Klesh. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk website http://www.lesleyahall.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:55:37 -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: Questions about Topicality Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020828095703.02882030@www.leeanne.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:06 AM 8/28/2002 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >Forrest's book is a particularly clear example of denial of any agency >to other than spiritual practice, and I will post a short review of the work >to the off-topic list if anyone is interested. By all means, post it here as well. Any discussion of feminist sf works is welcome on this list -- it doesn't have to relate to the current book discussion. At 03:06 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, Rosa Leah wrote: >I'm not sure how on-topic further discussion of polyamory is, but I'm >happy to talk about it more, either on or off list. If you can tie it in to *The Fifth Sacred Thing* or any other feminist sf work (in any medium), discuss away! Just try not to stray into purely theoretical and/or anecdotal territory that has no connection to the list's topic. Enjoying the debate, ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:18:50 -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: Dave Belden Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020828095703.02882030@www.leeanne.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > the real "heroes" of the book are the traitorous soldiers who > fire on their comrades. ... By positing that the workings of magic (and > magicians) are the real cause of the SF "victory," she denies the efficacy > of purely physical human endeavor. This is what I mean when I said > that she, like Forrest, denies that the (male) heroes existed. > Lee Anne, Thank you for explaining your pov on this more fully. I think I see better what you are getting at now, though I don't agree that it is the traitorous troops who are the real heroes: it isn't even their violence that really wins the day - it's the doubt in the rest of the soldiers' minds, the inability of the generals to retain command, and that was created by the people of the city, who are the real heroes. (And by the way I certainly agree that people can have contradictory views about a novel, just couldn't fit your earlier, perhaps compressed points into TFST at all). I accept the comments that people have made that the SF folks could have had more self-questioning about how they won, and I would have to go back and reread that ending to get clearer about it: so doubts have been sown in my mind now. But I still think this criticism is too purist: wouldn't people celebrate the survival of their society? So it was bought in a contradictory fashion (and no doubt they will be working on that one for years to come in their famous meetings). But it was not bought by 'magic' in the sense that Lee Anne sets it out above, as a 'divine' or supernatural intervention that "denies the efficacy of purely human endeavor". The result was gained purely by psychological work, albeit by people inspired by their beliefs - that was what I meant earlier about how I would have been truly disappointed in the ending if she had used a 'magical' or supernatural power to defeat the army. You don't have to believe in anything beyond the power of belief and visualization itself, to see the ending as plausible (if you find it plausible at all). > I personally found it nauseating. *Someone* should have taken into > their pretty little "superior consciousness" to whack Ohnine upside > the head and *save* some of the precious lives he took. Starhawk's whole point is that whacking Ohnine upside on the head would have brought about the wholesale deaths that Janice thinks would have been more likely from the start. Granted that Janice is probably right, and I also wondered why the army gave the people so much time to do their theater: no plausible reasons were given. But given the way she portrays it, violent resistance would have brought wholesale death. So if they had decided to try violent resistance, then they should have all just disappeared into the hills and attempted a guerilla war, because they had no hope otherwise. Instead they attempted something very bold, and rather different from most non-violent tactics tried throughout history. The reason the deaths of that family of children is inspiring is that they were prepared to die to make the theater work, and, of course, in the novel it did work, and it's hard to see how else Ohnine could have been turned around: and their deaths saved very many other deaths from happening. Righteously violent defenders risk and lose their lives to save their community: so give righteous non-violent defenders the same respect. What was redeeming about that family's deaths was not their reincarnation - it was that they saved thousands of lives. > While it's nice that right-thinking people in Starhawk's world have personal > experience of the reality of reincarnation, those whose experience > includes only the sure knowledge of this one existence might be > forgiven their primitive attachment to their limited Earthly lives. > > Starhawk's position on this is also inconsistent. Nuclear power plants > and the various wars she works actively against are mere blips in > the cosmic evolution of soul consciousness, affording ample > opportunities for karmic development and the resolution of life > lessons. Why on Earth should one become exercised about > ephemeral issues like nuclear waste, which, after all, can *only* > kill people, when spiritual matters are so much more meaningful > and important? > I don't think you are understanding Starhawk's kind of nature religion very clearly. It is very focused on this life, this earth. It's 'magic' is mostly psychological, despite Starhawk's flights of fancy in the novel about programming crystals etc. - even that kind of magic is posited as natural, rather than supernatural. The only really supernatural elements in the novel I can think of are the conversations with the dead (which can be read as conversations with memory) and perhaps the long-distance communications by dreaming - though again she could argue that that is a psychic capability that is natural, i.e. waiting to be discovered by physics, rather than supernatural. The whole thing is a celebration of life, and that is made very clear when Madrone is tempted towards death, while working on the virus inside herself, and is brought back. On polyamory, I have to agree with those who find it unconvincing in the novel. And I think Janice's comments about gay/lesbian relationships in the novel are thought-provoking. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:23:21 -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: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hey Feminist SF listers! I read The 5th Sacred Thing years ago on the recommendation of a friend who identifies as a witch, bisexual and ploy. I was just starting to take an interest in witchcraft at the time and also was recently out as a bisexual. So at the time I found the book eye opening. It gave me an example of a society who lived as a pagan society. The multi-cultural and muti-faith community that worked together was a new take on an idealistic society. The way every religious sect was accepted and made a part of the whole makes me think of how the Unitarians opporate. The other eyeopening element of the book was all the poly relationships contained within it. My friend who recommended the book was someone who I'd say does not do poly well, but the characters in the book showed and demonstrated how poly relationships can work. Now years later having been a queer activists and having met more and more poly folks I still appreciate the poly relationships in the book. A bi women book discussion group I am a part of recently discussed this book and in returning to it after having read the prequel and also starhawk's spiral dance I found the book to be more of a communist manifesto or aka the world according to starhawk. I am very aware of Starhawk's politics and religious beliefs and they are peppered throughout 5th Sacred Thing to such a degree that it almost turned into self parody. If you'd like to read or know more about how healthy poly relationships can work I suggest picking up a copy of The Ethical Slut. As for the magic in 5th Sacred Thing. I just accepted it and ran with it. Since I considered the book to be eco-fantasy story I wasn't bothered by the magic in it. Being a huge fan of shows like Buffy and what have you I find I just have to roll with it or else I'm just going to get hung up on the details. Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:00:06 -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: The Fifth Sacred Thing Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <002801c24ec7$fc70bb20$47229dc3@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:20 PM 8/28/02 +0100, Lesley Hall wrote: >M A Foster, the 'Ler' trilogy, consisting of The Gameplayers of Zan, The >Warriors of Dawn, and The Day of the Klesh. Thank you! Thank you! I kept thinking of Foster but couldn't place the correct titles in the series in my mind so disbelieved my own hunch. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:09:51 -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: Questions about Topicality - Long Review Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020828154153.029640b8@impop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:55 PM 8/28/02 -0400, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >At 11:06 AM 8/28/2002 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >>Forrest's book is a particularly clear example of denial of any agency >>to other than spiritual practice, and I will post a short review of the work >>to the off-topic list if anyone is interested. > >By all means, post it here as well. Any discussion of feminist sf works is >welcome on this list -- it doesn't have to relate to the current book >discussion. Polite Review: Daughters of an Amber Noon by Katherine V. Forrest Those who remember with fondness Katherine V. Forrest's Daughters of a Coral Dawn won't be disappointed with her new venture into the same speculative world. In the first book, not only were a small remnant of the Daughters, a clan of lesbians, left behind on Earth but billions of ordinary women were abandoned to their hard fate, a telling oversight. Here Ms. Forrest finally recollects those women. Where the first group of Daughters fled corrupt male governments at war, the remnant Daughters are forced into hiding by an even more dangerous and implacable foe, a brutal world dictator who makes the former nations look like wimps and wannabes. As the Daughters live in secret, building new technologies and social structures as required to improve their own lives, the billions of women we don't see struggle to survive in a world grown increasingly hostile to any form of human life. Millions, billions, die. This new dictator doesn't hesitate to obliterate entire nations with energy weapons from space and is encouraging the growth of virulent religious hate groups dedicated to misogyny and violence. How will the Daughters, how will any woman, survive? =================================================== Cynical Review: Daughters of an Amber Noon by Katherine V. Forrest While those who remember Daughters of a Coral Star with fondness won't be terribly disappointed in this new novel, it continues unsettling trends in the first without the naive charm that made one want to overlook its many flaws. One of the primary problems of the first Daughter novel was an elitist view made magically palatable only by the blithe assurance that all the Daughters, although descended from one human/alien mating, were somehow magically of many races, as if a mestiza is the same as a woman of indigenous heritage. Be that as it may, the book paid lip service to equality (among women at least) and, if it verged at times on fascism and the cult of the personality, the primary leitmotifs were women struggling to survive and (of course, since this *was* a lesbian novel) a love story. Within the limits of that premise the novel was tolerably fun to read and, if not inspected too closely, satisfying. But the second doesn't benefit from the willing suspension of disbelief enjoyed by the first. We've all grown wiser, have experienced (or at least heard of) the Lesbian Wars, and have (for the most part) taken to heart the salient critique of a lesbian feminism primarily formulated by WASP women by women of color. And here the latest book falls down. Unlike the first book, which conveniently left *ordinary* women, those not descended from Mother, an alien being from the stars, behind on Earth, where we could ignore their sad fate without too much angst, this one takes place on Earth itself, and the "ordinary" women are constantly with us, at least in the back of our minds. And they don't rest there comfortably at all. We hear of them being murdered, enslaved, raped, forced to bear children for the brutal male rulers of Earth and callously ignore their plight, condescending only to wring our hands from time to time secure in the knowledge that the little tribe of two thousand lesbians is safe and more-or-less secure in a hideaway tucked into a corner of Death Valley, which has magically been excavated by means of the superior technology of part-alien lesbians to form a hidden city. No heterosexual women need bother to apply for this safety, nor indeed anyone not directly related to the founders. Well, Darwin might be pleased by this working out of natural selection but I'm not. Are purely human women so worthless that, while we naturally have compassion for the poor dears, we really can't be bothered to actually put our more *evolved* selves into danger by actually trying to *help* them? After all, there are so *many* of them, like ants really, and, while we may deeply regret the destruction of a nest by someone digging a posthole, it's not really going to ruin our day. And the quasi-racism implied by imputing "pure" lesbianism only to persons descended from one alien mother, who are uniformly talented and clever, while ordinary women are doomed to lapse into (gasp!) heterosexuality, clear proof of their overall stupidity, rankles. To me, this seems as contemptuous of human abilities as the theories of the Flying Saucer people, who are convinced that any engineering or architectural feat accomplished in ancient times must have been performed by aliens from outer space, since mere humans (especially non-White humans) are obviously too moronic and childlike to figure *anything* out without help. Of course, this implies that the Flying Saucer people have been led to their conclusions by aliens as well, and we should really look for secret alien influence all around us, since we are obviously incapable of any serious intellectual or physical accomplishment on our own. And so it goes. It turns out that the Daughters are the willing bearers of what used to be called the White Man's Burden, carefully conserving and extending the best of human civilization to preserve arts and sciences from mere human ignorance and destructive madness. In fact, the wily Earthmen are anxious to bring those pesky Daughters back into their control precisely because all science and progress has stalled since the Daughters stopped contributing directly to human knowledge. I guess that will teach us to respect our betters, eh? The problem is that this scenario leaves unexplored the possibility that the Daughters *could* have ameliorated Earth's problems with a little more effort. And it fact this novel demonstrates that possibility conclusively. It's a poor case for superiority when the supposed elite is lazy and unimaginative. To understand how badly this novel goes wrong, it's really necessary to examine it in detail, so the following discussion contains "spoilers" (if it were even *possible* to spoil such a mishmash) and you might want to break off reading here if you intend to read the book on publication. =========================================== Precis: The book is structured around the two thousand remaining Daughters of Mother, the over-sexed extra-terrestrial humanoid who founded a line of 6000 females, all for some strange reason lesbians, who build a hidden colony beneath the surface of Death Valley, in this future world a radioactive waste dump and volcanic wilderness inimical to human life, in order to hide from the male-dominated governments. But a wild card arises, a man who simply waltzes in and takes over rulership of the world, a trivial matter since he is brilliant as only James Bond villains can be and essentially unopposed, the rest of the males being stupid and incompetent. This last of course seems perfectly reasonable. This new world dictator spends his spare time searching for the Daughters, this being the sort of thing that evil geniuses like to do since they have a sentimental attachment to Ming the Merciless and are forever trying to steal the girlfriends of the (usually male) protagonists. In fact, stealing women is almost de rigeur in this line of work. "Oddly," the said evil nemesis is *also* the former childhood companion and dearest friend of the most brilliant of the Daughters. He is now incomprehensibly ruthless and brutal, annihilating entire countries if they disobey his slightest whim and arbitrarily destroying any individual who offends him by keying their genetic code into a ubiquitous network of genetic scanners cum laser cannon emplacements, despite his gentle nature as a child and young man. Tch, tch. To make a long story short, the "vicious" characteristics of this "madman" and dictator are so obviously telegraphed as covert ulterior motive that the "brilliant" Daughter and former friend who now hates him has obviously suffered a stroke, since any reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would realize within minutes of his introduction into the story that he is pursuing a vital hidden agenda of his own and quite probably serving an ulterior purpose not necessarily hostile to the survival of the Daughters and, indeed, humanity as a whole. And so it transpires. We're not terribly surprised to "find out" *finally* that the whole psychotic villain gig has merely been a ploy to bring world population and international politics under control, ending both hunger and war without the karmic involvement of women (who are of course too fine and good to use any sort of aggression or weapon to actually *hurt* people -- Goddess forfend!), while setting up the stage for a clever little shuffling off of the male of the species to usher in a "Forrested" version of Whileaway. Said "evil" dictator has even thoughtfully gone to the trouble of setting up a new misogynistic religion more virulent than any before, if such a thing were possible, and encouraged all the more violent and nasty men to join. Since he's our stand-in for divine justice (his name being Theo Zedara after all, which, being interpreted, means "The Last God") he naturally kills them all (millions of them) at a worldwide mass rally before turning the keys over to the women and committing ambiguous suicide accompanied, in a profoundly silly act of atonement, by Africa, the presumably Black (sort of) Brilliant Daughter, who feels guilty because she didn't figure this out (despite many hints and shouts from the audience) in time to save billions of lives and ensure the ultimate destruction of the world through her stupid, but oh so endearingly feminine, sentimentality. (Heavenly choirs here sing as Femina Sapiens enters triumphantly into her Queendom, unfettered by anything other than the possibility (which of course is not exercised) of pathetic gratitude for the *men* who made it all possible and unencumbered by any sort of man, except of course for a few gay male mascots who will inevitably die, like pet turtles, and be taxidermically mounted in museums, along with dinosaurs and dodos, to remind us of the Bad Old Days when toilet seats were usually left up) There is, of course, a scientific explanation of this dea ex machina in that Mother Earth, who has supposedly been waiting for us all, has in fact been busily digging a rather specialized hole for a few of us. She's decided that men are not cost effective and is in the process of rendering them all impotent (without life-threatening virility-enhancing drugs at least) and sterile. Women of course have Estrova, the mystical drug that allows genetic mingling of female gametes (ova) to produce healthy offspring, female only of course, making sexual reproduction possible between two women despite the erosion of the male gene pool to the point that they are now genetic mules. Exactly how male genetic material has degenerated so badly with no adverse affect on women is unexplained but presumably due to the inherent fragility of that pesky Y chromosome. How handy for Mother Nature! Just when She's decided to make men sterile, She thoughtfully provides a female scientist, undoubtedly through natural selection, who miraculously ensures that humanity survives, albeit with a few missing parts, and (mirabile dictu!) a *male* who is dedicated to helping things along. So when the Daughters who split the scene in the last book come back to save the day, they discover that it's all over but the shouting and the whole place has been tidied up since last they were here. Whew! We'll ignore the fact that they travel though a hitherto unnoted Time Warp that somehow makes the Earth behave like Fairyland, where time passes so slowly that the errant Daughters spend a generation on Maternas (their lovely coral planet) while a few years go by on Earth. The problems this poses for Einsteinian Relativity have obviously not been well thought out, since they plan to avoid the "Time Warp" that caused this problem on their return. Don't you just love these Warp Thingies? They're such satisfying and believable devices to bring together the otherwise completely mismatched bits of plot and continuity left over from previous projects without having to really explain anything. If only the cinema could use these to explain how a woman can fall into a raging whirlpool in one scene and be seen in the next with dry clothes, perfectly coifed, and her makeup nicely repaired. Now that I know that it must have been a Time Warp, these seeing mistakes will cease to jar. One hopes they don't accidently run into another Time Warp on their way back, since it would be a shame to find all their friends dead of old age when they arrive. This book is cultural feminism taken to absurdity, however alluring the prospect may be in theory, at least when one squints one's eyes a bit and dons sufficiently rose-colored glasses. In a stunning tautology, men wind up being completely unnecessary except for the purpose of getting rid of the dangerous men (all of them!) and protecting the women, which is (as I recall) pretty much the whole theoretical underpinning and rationale for patriarchy in the first place. And women wind up as pushovers, whose only real survival skill seems to be cowering in the corner while the heavy lifting and necessary murder is done by men. Of course they *do* manage to decorate their little hidy hole very tastefully and without elitist differentiation between women with varying degrees of talent, due to the handy fact that they have miles of underground corridors lined with the collective refrigerator art of the few thousand Daughters. And of course their crocheted doilies for preserving the furniture from water spots caused by messy sprinkles from their many potted plants reach new heights of beauty and refinement. But when it comes to saving worlds, it turns out we really needed the men all along, as the women are completely ineffectual. Where, oh where, is a handy butch or diesel dyke when you really need her? Not here, obviously. Every woman we see is either Femme or Kiki so when they need bugs shooed away, the big bad lesbians have to ask the man next door to come over and help. So what else is new? Did we need a lesbian icon to tell us this? All in all, I prefer Russ' Whileaway, whose feisty women manage to go to war to protect themselves *and* their sisters from male aggression instead of looking out for "number one" while clasping fluttering hands to bosoms from time to time when a few million women, here and there, are butchered or brutalized for male "fun." And Forrest doesn't really seem capable of understanding what "brilliance" is really like. She should have spent some time actually *talking* to persons four or five standard deviations above the mean before attempting to portray one as a central figure. I can understand her trepidation, since truly intelligent people can be both daunting and intimidating, but her portrayal of Africa is so far from the mark that one completely fails to believe in her talent. We see nothing to indicate her genius other than her own self-reports and the boundless admiration of others. In fact, the reaction of most people to the presence of genius is discomfort and anger. Genius is best, in the opinion of the great mass of humanity, left quietly ensconced in academic towers of silence, from which they let down clever inventions occasionally and otherwise keep out of normal people's hair. ================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:19:01 -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: Questions about Topicality - Paganism, Non-Violence Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020828154153.029640b8@impop.bellatlantic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:55 PM 8/28/02 -0400, Janice E. Dawley wrote: By all means, post it here as well. Any discussion of feminist sf works is >welcome on this list -- it doesn't have to relate to the current book >discussion. Well, this does, sort of, in that the artist discusses several topics related to non violence and paganism. Here is the artist: Patrick Farley Here is his web site: http://www.e-sheep.com/ Here are some of his stories: Saturnalia http://www.e-sheep.com/Saturnalia/ This is the one about Paganism. While somewhat didactic, it does raise several interesting points. The Jain's Death http://www.e-sheep.com/jain/ This is the one about non-violence and reincarnation. It doesn't turn out quite like you might have predicted. He's also the creator of Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything, a work of some notoriety:http://www.e-sheep.com/rusheats/