Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF-LIT LOG0209C" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:30:01 -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: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG - The Annunciate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I just finished the book -- I didn't realize this was a different S. Park book than the others I had already read, so I had to get it and read it after discussion started. I enjoyed this book as a page-turner and escape. The technology was interesting and the story twists kept me guessing. Luckily I didn't read the blurb on the back of the book, since it spoiled several aspects of the story. At first, I was strongly reminded of Park's earlier stories. Staze seemed like another analogy for slavery, especially how she presented it here. The first part of the book, until they get to Paradise and things get wierd, reminded me a lot of her other books. I didn't see the connection with the Christian story of the virgin mother -- despite what seemed like glaring Catholic analogies. Nike's suggestion that Mary's experience might parallel Naverdi's if she were an unbeliever feels right on to me and adds a lot to the depth of the book. That's why I love discussing books in this group, I just get so much more out of the stories. I found it interesting that I really didn't like any of the characters. Most of them I didn't like because they were only partly there, most of the time they were trapped in the Algebra of Need (thanks Janice). Also I think there's some judgement going on from me, since I have a hard time seeing addiction in a positive or neutral way. I kept wanting them to find a way to break the addiction, the way they did in Hand of Prophecy. I did think it was interesting the way she tried to show that the addiction could turn into something neutral or actually positive. But it didn't seem like a clear resolution of that for me. In fact, I thought there were a lot of things that didn't get clearly resolved. As Janice suggests, I did feel the ending was a disappointment. Perhaps she's thinking about a sequel? I had a hard time resolving the idea of the alien actually draining staze from addicts all over the universe... if it could do that, why did it need more? And it seemed unsatisfying to me to have Eve turn on Ann Marie so completely, I had a hard time understanding such a hard-line response. And it didn't feel right that she should feel so fulfilled as a mother. I hope others were tardy in reading the book, like I was, and that we can get a little more discussion going. Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:17:03 -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: BDG: The Annunciate Comments: To: Feminist SF/F In-Reply-To: <3D768875.C0A6338D@mailbox.gu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:25 AM 9/5/02 +1000, nike wrote: >ok - so i couldn't resist going that one step further :) I think all these things are implied, especially including Burroughs' analysis of addiction. Interestingly, the Catholic church has been much in the news of late involving the addictions of some of its hierarchy, with the furtive homosexuality implied in its Greek exposition and foundation in Paul, in its collective concupiscence for wealth and status, and in its lust for secular power which has led it into bed with those who hold that power, no matter how strange those bedfellows might be, or how alienated from the self-styled intentions of the soi-disant keepers of the keys of Peter. But the cure for all these addictions is found in the same book they supposedly find inspiration in, whose sage advice hasn't been followed in our civilization for thousands of years despite considerable lip service paid to its ideals. "Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Leviticus 25:10 Unacknowledged in the words inscribed on the Liberty Bell, and in the foundation myths of this country, is the whole context of the verses in which this fragment appears, from V'Yikrah, Behar. "Cold turkey withdrawal." This portion states that land and material wealth should be distributed equitably, but realizing that some people managed their wealth better than others, that some people fell on hard times, it forced everyone to restore the status quo periodically, redistribute the means of production to the entire population, and start over. It's nothing less than a radical statement about the acquisition of material wealth, and a call for social and economic justice for every citizen. How our founding "fathers" reconciled this with slavery is a matter for conjecture, but we can assume that greed played a large part in it. Of course proclaiming the Jubilee with the shofar hasn't been done in quite a long time, but it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine how it might work. During the Jubilee, one must rely on stored supplies for everything, since it is forbidden to harvest (work). This would probably force most drug addicts to quit, since an addict with a year's supply of dope is probably dead. And it forces landlords to give away their holdings, so no family is forced into perpetual rents and servitude. The means of production, which in ancient Israel was the land, have to be redelivered into the hands of *every* person every fifty years. There's no place in this scheme for any long-lasting addiction, since everything one accumulates will eventually be given away, just as the North-West Indian tribes held "potlatch," giveaways, that radically redistributed wealth from time to time so that dynasties of wealth and power were never allowed to build to the point of resentment and injustice. So renunciation is built into the system, and a built-in incentive to concentrate on one's ecological relationship with the land and with one's community. While your family may be rich is this generation, the shoe may be on the other foot in the next, and so each citizen is told to do justice to the neighbor, to the hired servant, for we all have higher obligations and indebtedness. You can't ruin a property with poisons or physical degradation and then sell it to some unsuspecting buyer, for it will come back to you in fifty years and you, or your children, will have to live on it and with the consequences of your actions because the earth is not yours, but is a gift to all of us. So the hollow lifestyle depicted in Park's novel, fostering and supplying addiction, is inherently immoral and is shown to be so in the fact that the practitioners of this flimflam are perpetually on the run as they ruin one society after another. The only way out of this vicious cycle is to utterly renounce one's wicked, wicked ways, and repent. And I think that both annunciation and renunciation is implied in Park's story, both as word play and in the plot. The only salvation lies in renunciation of "power over" and the acceptance of mutual responsibility, even to the point of offering up one's life, or womb, for another. It's a mitzvah, a holy obligation. Here's the whole thing: "And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and there shall be unto thee the days of seven sabbaths of years, even forty and nine years. Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the day of atonement shall ye make proclamation with the horn throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you; ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of the undressed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy unto you; ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. In this year of jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession. And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buy of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee. According to the multitude of the years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for the number of crops doth he sell unto thee. And ye shall not wrong one another; but thou shalt fear thy God; for I am the LORD your God. Wherefore ye shall do My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety. And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat until ye have enough, and dwell therein in safety. And if ye shall say: 'What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase'; then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat of the produce, the old store; until the ninth year, until her produce come in, ye shall eat the old store. And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and settlers with Me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his possession, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come, and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold. And if a man have no one to redeem it, and he be waxen rich and find sufficient means to redeem it; then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; and he shall return unto his possession. But if he have not sufficient means to get it back for himself, then that which he hath sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubilee; and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession. And if a man sell a dwelling-house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; for a full year shall he have the right of redemption. And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the jubilee. But the houses of the villages which have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubilee. And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. I am the LORD your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God. And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee. Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:56:01 +0100 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Angela Barclay Subject: Re: BDG - The Annunciate Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > >I hope others were tardy in reading the book, like I was, and that we can >get a little more discussion going. > Jennifer: I have to confess that I am so tardy, I haven't started reading it (I have been completely turned into a worker drone by a second job). I was looking forward to the discussion too because I found Park's _Hand of Prophecy_ to be so powerful. Would you say that _The Annunciate_ is as descriptive and entertaining as _Hand_? You mentioned that you didn't like any of the characters. I found that even the vile characters in _Hand_ were so convincing and round that I 'liked' them. Angela ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:10:48 -0700 Reply-To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Sender: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: BDG - The Annunciate Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia In-Reply-To: <20020920004112.IXJA5461.priv-edtnes09-hme0.telusplanet.net @[161.184.58.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Angela, At 10:56 AM 9/19/02 , you wrote: > Would you say that _The Annunciate_ is as descriptive and >entertaining as _Hand_? You mentioned that you didn't like any of the >characters. I found that even the vile characters in _Hand_ were so >convincing and round that I 'liked' them. > >Angela I actually don't think I enjoyed Annunciate as much as Hand, perhaps because of the characters. The main character in this new book was just unrelentingly naive. She didn't seem to grow that much in self-awareness during the book despite going through some very challenging experiences. Perhaps the author was saving some of that development for a sequel. I thought the addict characters were pretty one-dimensional. Maybe slavery creates more interesting characters than addiction. I did think the writing was good, the descriptions were captivating, and the story moved along quickly and drew me right in. The idea of socioeconomic classes based on net access is worth exploring, especially in these times. But that aspect of it got a little lost in the religious story I think. Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:53:09 -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: "Deborah A. Oosterhouse" Organization: DAO Editorial Services Subject: Re: BDG - The Annunciate Comments: To: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Although I wasn't really tardy reading the book, I have been thinking about it for a while before throwing out some of my thoughts. This is the first Severna Park novel I've read. Especially after Jennifer's comments on some of her other stuff, I may have to look up those. I was most intrigued by the alien creature who seemed quite the chameleon to me. Eve was the first one to meet it and, because it bit her, she called it a "succubus". I can't help wondering how Eve's reactions to the whole situation would have been different if she hadn't had that first negative experience and used that negative term to describe the creature. To Corey, it was a sex object; to Annmarie, it was a child; to the Staze addicts, it was a savior (of sorts). And every time it ran into one of these preconceptions about who/what it was, it slid right into that role and behaved that way. One of the things that I find most interesting about this is that everyone else is trying to slap a label onto this alien, when it really is just an infant being that doesn't have much experience of its universe. In some ways I suppose this could relate to the standard "Ave/Eva" view of women in which they are either unrealistically holy (like Mary, the virgin mother) or completely depraved (like Eve, that wicked first sinner). In reality women, like all people and like this alien, have both positive and negative characteristics in combination. By the end, Eve seemed to be the only one who got beyond her initial perceptions of the alien as evil and dangerous. I did also like the concept of turning the Staze addiction into something more positive. Instead of all these individuals wasting half their lives in an isolated dream world, they were able to interact with each other within the Staze visions. But I would also have to agree with the lack of resolution. Once the alien is born as a human baby, where does that go? There does seem to be a lot left open yet at the end. I wasn't really surprised that Eve turned on Annmarie. She knew that she was the one who had saved Annmarie from dying in the fire at Sanctuary, yet Annmarie had this vision of Eve as a sort of needy, grasping troll child. Eve just finally came to the realization that Annmarie had been manipulating her and didn't care anything about her, and she also needed to save the alien from the sort of life that she had experienced with Annmarie as her "mother". What I found most interesting about that bit was that Eve had to teach the alien how to fight because it didn't know how. And then, it stopped fighting anyway and absorbed Annmarie into itself. I think that whole scene was important to Eve's realization that this alien wasn't as evil as she had thought it was. Deborah