I want to respond both to the points about the homophobia in The Gate to
Women's Country, and the question of an author's responsibility for the
politics of their work generally.
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Martha Bartter wrote:
> At 15:46 4/10/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >I think it would be unfair to condem Tepper as anti-gay based merely on her
> >description a "the gay sundrome" caused by a hormonal imbalance that was
> >fixed at birth. I don't recall the "gay syndrome" was a big part of the
> >book, but I read it a long time ago and may have forgotten. So we should give
> >Tepper a break here.
>
> It's always a mistake, I think, to hold an author personally responsible
> for what her characters say and do in a story. (It's frequently done,
> but it's neither fair nor honest.)
>
> Martha Bartter
First, I encourage anyone who's interested to actually look at the passage
at issue in Gate, it's at p. 76 (of my Spectra edition). As I said before
my two problems with it, in the context of the novel as a whole are (1)
the passing and uncritical reference to a queer genocide, and (2) the way
in which she sloppily mixes the issues of the sexual abuse of children
with homosexuality, a classic form of homophobia. While the 'science'
of this "gay syndrome" is flawed I won't go into that, it's only slight
more flawed than the biology is destiny science of the book as a whole.
I maintain that this passage, in context, is homophobic and irresponsible.
That's not to say that Tepper understood the importance of what she was
saying (but if she didn't she should have) or that she can't have grown in
other work since then. I haven't read anything else of hers so I don't
know. Imagine a passing reference to a selective breeding process which
wiped out all people who are jewish or black. Imagine the reference
suggested that this was necessary because that population was prone to
violence or sex crimes. Imagine the author just dropped it in, the only
character who makes reference to it does so in a way that suggests the
positive evolution of the human race, in a book that as a whole suggests
that selective breeding might not be such a bad thing, and NO character in
the book ever says anything else about the issue.
I would never suggest that a reader should ascribe the beliefs of any
character in a piece of fiction to the author. But I do strongly believe
that authors are responsible for the political messages contained in their
works, read as a whole. If a book, taken as a whole, suggests a certain
philosophy, supports a certain religion, advocates or treats favourably
certain political beliefs, then the author is responsible for putting that
message out into the public domain. This is part of what I love about
science fiction, the way author's philosophies can be explored and
discussed in imaginative ways. But an author, upon being criticized,
cannot be shielded by simply saying "it's fiction." The very topic of
this list, feminist scifi, suggests that we all understand the political
importance of literature.
solidarity, Robin Gordon
------------------------
"I am the wall with the womanly swagger."
Judy Grahn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:00 PDT