To Micheal Levy,
I lectured on The Female Man last sumester. The reactions varied wildly
from stunned shock (mostly young men- I don't really think the book is
adressed to men actually, although having them read something that is not
adressed to them (which women have to do all the time) is in itself
useful), to absolute hostility (mostly, interestingly,
from young women), with the occassional enthusiastic responce (about 5
out of a class of 90).The novels violence (although Russ- rather
disingenuiously I feel, argues that it is not violent).
This doesn't mean I think that the book isn't worth teaching, at all.
Exposing people to ideas that they instictively dislike can be productive
and can force them to think of things that had previously never occurred
to them. The book is provacative- a sort of guerrilla attack on people's
dearly held assumptions. It also refuses to be reduced to a
coherent narrative and many students dislike having to actually pierce
together what is going on, and work at reading.I am extremely unimpressed
by this argument for removing it from book lists.
I found it very useful as an
introduction to post-modernism. I also found tying it to its
time one way of dealing with it. There is no doubt that it is anchored to
the state of things in the 1970's. But as this was the time when feminism
first forced its way into SF(among other things), I can't see this time
boundedness as making the book
irrelevant. As the book itself states, when it is no longer
relevant, then its task will be completed. I think its very relevant in
these neo-con times, but many may disagree....
Tanya.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT