Hi Catherine,
(I hope this isn't more about French history than
you ever wanted to hear!)
>From: Catherine Asaro <asaro@sff.net>
>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:55:15 -0400
>
>
>Thanks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. One reason I was so tickled
>with it is that I was warned (with much dire propshesy <g>) that It
>Couldn't Be Done, that is, it wasn't possible to mix hard science
>fiction with a feminine view point, particularly if it included a love
>story, because hard science fiction readers wouldn't tolerate the love
>story and romance readers wouldn't tolerate the hard sf. However,
They must have been looking at the sales figures
for STARFARERS. All I can figure is, I wrote
myself into the world's smallest marketing niche
and couldn't figure any way out.
>despite all the warnings, it seems to be doing well, perhaps even better
>than my first (which is soon to go into a reprinting), though it is too
>early to tell yet for certain.
>
That would be great -- the more real people in sf,
the better. Congratulations on the reprint, too --
that's not all that common these days, either.
>Personally, I think hard science fiction could do with more of the
>feminine viewpoint.
>
>> Thanks for the kind words. It's quite a comfort to hear from some folks who didn't
>> read Moon & Sun as science-v.-women's intuition, &c.
>
>I didn't read it that way at all! And I'm about as "hard" a scientist
>as there is (my doctorate it in theoretical atomic and molecular
>physics, which is quantum theory applied to the study of how atoms and
>molecules behave).
>
>MJ clearly has a scientific mind. She approaches her work with Yves
>with a dedication and insight that makes for a good role model for
>students of science. When I was a physics professor, I considered doing
>a class on science in science fiction. THE MOON AND THE SUN would have
>made a good choice because it shows a great deal about how science is
>done, both in terms of good technique and technique to avoid.
>
Thanks. I did a good bit of work on trying to get
that right within the knowledge and procedures of
the time.
>> It wasn't at all uncommon for people to have the
>> constellation of abilities that Marie-Josephe
>> possesses (drawing, music, singing were all
>> staples of upper class education, such as it was),
>
>In fact, many mathematicians also play instruments, in particular the
>piano. In fact, some researchers apparently believe a correlation
>between musicality and mathematical ability.
>
I always thought there was, though I'm not sure
what information I base the assumption on.
>> so when I get hammered for giving her those
>> talents, plus the math and physics interest that
>> so often goes along with musical talent, I mostly
>> assume that the person who's hammering me knows
>> even less about history than I do (which is kind
>> of difficult!).
>
>After reading the book, I would say you know a lot about history!
>
I know a lot about the court of Louis XIV, at
Versailles. In 1693. September. (It was quite
different in, say, 1663.) Move any direction in
time and space, and my knowledge curve falls
precipitously.
>It's a hoot when people say "Oh, a woman can't do all that. Of course
>not." Hah hah. What am I, chopped liver? <g> When I tell them I am a
>ballet dancer with a doctorate in quantum physics who plays piano, they
>quit hammering.
>
>I can't tell you how much a related to MJ.
>
It would be wonderful to watch people shut up like
a box when you happened to mention, by the way,
that...
>> The funny thing I found was that women were more
>> likely to be allowed to study science than they
>> were to be allowed to study the Classics, which
>> were considered far too powerful for delicate
>> feminine brains.
>
>Perhaps the subjectivity of the Classics is what makes women's take on
>it more controversial. In science and math, H(psi)=E(psi) no matter
>what you think about the portrayal of women in the discipline. Not so
>in the Classics. So I can see how it would be considered "more
>dangerous" to have women study it. They might (and do) challenge the
>prevailing modes of thought. Even now I am =amazed= at the depth of the
>hostility I get when I express my opinion that the so-called literary
>canon and the schools of thought involved with its interpretation are
>biased against women.
>
I think that likely had something to do with it,
inasmuch as there was any rational basis at all
for preventing women from studying the Classics.
But I think the real reason, stated or not, was
that knowledge of the classics was a marker for
the top of the hierarchy (especially in England).
It could have been anything, and has been a lot of
other things in other societies in other times.
But there and then it was knowledge of the
Classics. And if it was reserved for the top of
the hierarchy, then you _obviously_ couldn't allow
women to do it. It was against nature and God's
will.
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>
>
>A
>L
>E
>R
>T
>
>> Chartres and Lotte are the children of Madame and
>> Monsieur (Louis' sister-in-law; and his brother).
>> I don't think there's any credible evidence that
>> Madame ever had a sexual relationship with anyone
>> other than her husband.
>
>I was curious about Monsier and Lorraine too. Was Lorraine truly
>bisexual, or just involved with Monsier because gave him power?
>
It's hard to tell about Lorraine. I think he was
probably bisexual, but I think his sexuality took
second place to (or was an instrument to advance)
his ambition. He mostly used his looks and charm
to get what he wanted, though it's kind of hard to
figure out why he didn't (as far as I'm aware)
consolidate his resources. But then it's kind of
hard to trust the reporting on Lorraine and
Monsieur. And it's a little difficult to find out
information about Lorraine himself, past his
involvement with Monsieur. One reference said he
was illegitimate, another said he was a younger
son of a noble family (the brother of Monsieur le
Grand).
For 300 years Monsieur has been dismissed; there's
really only one sympathetic biography that I could
find. (Obviously it convinced me; I became quite
fond of the guy while I was writing the book.)
Since homosexuality was punishable by death
(namely by being burned at the stake), you can be
sure there aren't a lot of sympathetic
contemporary reports about either man. Lorraine
and Monsieur were accused of all sorts of plots of
greater or lesser ridiculousness; Lorraine was
even banished a couple of times. (One lingering
accusation was that they poisoned Monsieur's first
wife, Henriette d'Angleterre; as I mentioned, I
think she died of anorexia. But I could be wrong.)
I think Lorraine was the great passion of
Monsieur's life.
>> Louis' lovers (such as -- probably -- Monsieur's first wife, the vivacious, charming,
>> high-strung, and in my opinion anorectic Henriette d'Angleterre) were all beautiful.
>
>He certainly got around! One is tempted to think half of France are his
>progeny. (well, okay, maybe not =half.= <g>)
>
Or maybe so. He _did_ get around. And he was
horrible to the queen: he made her ride in the
same coach as his mistresses. (He usually had one
"official" mistress and a couple of others at the
same time. The part of Moon & Sun where Lucien
says Louis used to climb across the roof to visit
chambermaids is apparently quite true.)
>> He became progressively more devout after he banished
>> Mme de Montespan, after the queen died, and after he
>> took up with (& probably married) Mme de Maintenon.
>
>One thing I was puzzled about. Why didn't the King make it clear he
>married Mme de Maintenon, if he did? Why let her put up with all the
>grief she took? If he didn't marry her, why wouldn't he, given that
>they lived together as husband and wife? Also I'm curious, why did Mme
>de Monterspan get banished? (I never knew all this historical stuff was
>so interesting <G>).
>
Louis, as far as I can tell, mostly didn't care
whether he gave anybody grief. In fact he put a
lot of effort into figuring out ways to give
people subtle types of grief. (It distracted them
from plotting against him.)
There were serious dynastic objections to his
marrying Mme de Maintenon. (It was one of the few
things Monsieur ever stood up to Louis about.) For
one thing, she had been born a commoner. (She
bought the title Mme de Maintenon with money the
king gave her.) Louis already had a legitimate
heir and a flock of illegitimate children that he
was promoting like crazy, at the urging of Mme de
Maintenon (who was not their mother but in several
instances their governess, really more of a
surrogate mother). Mme de Maintenon was probably
but not certainly past child-bearing; you can
imagine how the members of the royal family viewed
the idea of more offspring.
It's tempting to say, "He wouldn't publicly
acknowledge her because he knew that was the thing
she most wanted" (not for the status but for the
respectability), but that's probably too simple.
Montespan got banished because she was accused of
using black magic to keep Louis under her spell.
The incident was called The Affair of the Poisons
and there are a number of books about it. She was
accused of giving him love potions and of trying
to poison him. Of course poisoning him made no
sense whatsoever since all her status and power
and wealth derived directly from him. But the
Affair of the Poisons was essentially a witch
hunt, and witch hunts seldom make any sense
whatsoever.
>> I took some pleasure in hinting or stating that most
>> of the main characters in the book, except Marie-Josephe,
>> had different parents than they (or the public) believed,
>> not excepting Monsieur and Louis himself. (I think the possibility
>> exists that Mazarin had something to do with their existence,
>> though I doubt that question can ever be answered.)
>
>Hey. Say more about Louis and Monsieur. I missed those refernces. Who
>is Mazarin again?
>
There's just one quick place, when MJ and Lucien
are on the roof and Lucien has just told her the
convoluted story of his parentage, where MJ starts
to say that Monsieur doesn't resemble... And
Lucien tells her not to insult the late queen in
his presence (by implying that Monsieur might not
be legitimate). I'm not entirely sure he's
speaking in irony there (given that he himself is
the late queen's illegitimate son).
Mazarin (long dead by the time of Moon & Sun) was
Cardinal Richelieu's successor in terms of
advising Anne of Austria, Louis XIII's queen and
Louis XIV's mother, especially when Louis XIV was
crowned but not yet of age. Apparently he was
quite a tyrant. There's some speculation that he
was Anne of Austria's lover, and possibly even her
husband. Though he was a cardinal, he wasn't a
priest (apparently you could get appointed
cardinal without being a priest during those
times, if you had the right strings to pull), so
it wouldn't even have been breaking any vows for
him to marry her. Anne was married to Louis XIII
for a long time before they had any children -- by
all reports Louis XIII wasn't interested in women
-- so one can speculate that she might have taken
matters into her own hands with somebody else.
As soon as Mazarin died, Louis took over the reins
of government himself (the time is usually
referred to as his "personal reign") and never let
anybody have the kind of influence over him as
Mazarin did. (He also mostly chose advisers who
were commoners, and very seldom allowed a member
of the nobility to have any real influence. There
were exceptions, though.)
>Another point I was confused on was the shenanigans surrounding Lucien's
>parentage. What I got was that the previous queen was his mother and
>his acknowledged father was his biological father. His brother was the
>son of his acknowledged father's wife but actually had a different
>father. But someone else had a daughter who was also a dwarf, and at
>birth she was switched with Lucien, because otherwise Lucien threatened
>the throne due to his noble birth? And that other daughter had
>something to do with the King of Spain? I'm confused! <g>
>
Actually you have it perfectly right. Marie-
Therese was the daughter of the King of Spain. Her
retinue (possibly the only people who actually
cared anything about her), when she came to France
to marry Louis, included a number of dwarves. The
queen is rumored, in our real history, to have
borne a daughter to a member of her retinue, and
the daughter was said to have been raised in a
French convent. (I don't actually know whether the
rumor was true, but it was related in quite matter
of fact terms in several sources -- people would
go to the convent to visit the daughter, &c.)
The fact that she was actually the daughter of two
Spaniards from the queen's retinue is why Lucien
says that she _could_ go back to Spain and be one
of the Spanish king's retinue, but why would she
want to?
All I added to the gossip of the time was the idea
that Lucien was really the baby the queen had, and
his father spirited him away to raise as his and
his wife's own, and the cover-up was that the
child of two of Marie-Therese's attendants was put
in his place.
(Why the consequences of all this -- the
historical rumor, I mean -- were essentially
benign is a question I never saw an answer to.)
Because of Marie-Therese, Lucien could have had a
claim on the Spanish throne (a pretty terrible
fate considering the Spanish court, which sounded
painfully stuffy, cruelly devout, stupid, and
boring; in fact one of her grandchildren --
Philippe, duke d'Anjou -- became King of Spain a
few years after the time of Moon & Sun); because
of his father's heritage, Lucien could even have
been a threat to the French throne. So he had to
be spirited away and his true parentage kept
secret.
(Sorry for the length.)
Best,
Vonda
http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda
The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's
"Best Books of 1997"
http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:46 PDT