Robin Reid wrote:
>
> One thing I've learned during my years of identifying as a feminist (which I
> now refer to as "the f-word it's dangerous to say in public) and doing
> feminist scholarship in literary studies (you bet that a lot of
> academic/literary criticism and theory is biased if not downright hostile to
> women, women writers, women readers, and women critics) is that there are
> many definitions of "feminist."
That is a good point. I once heard a student at the college where I was
a professor express astonishment that a stay-at-home mom they knew
considered herself a feminist. The student was floored both because a
woman in that situation supported feminism and because she spoke openly
about it.
> I consider _The Moon and the Sun_ to embody a feminist perspective rather
> than just a female point of view because the protagonist consciously
> questions her culture's views of "women" (the religious view that she should
> be silent and not study; the patriarchal view that she should marry or
> should devote her life to serving a male) and then makes a moral and ethical
> decision that is misunderstood or likely to be punished by most people
> around her. She also finds most of her emotional support for the majority
> of the novel from women: not only from women, but from women marginalized
> by her society (a "slave" and an "animal").
I see your point. I doubt we would call a story about a man in that era
questioning his role in society as the male equivalent of feminism
("political" is the best analogy I can think of). Consider Lucien's
actions. He too makes decisions based on questioning the status quo of
his life, much like Marie-Josepha, knowing full well what it will cost
him. But I doubt most readers would describe the novel as "political,"
at least in that sense. In fact, I suspect many would admire Lucien for
standing up to Louis. What he did was controversial =in the court of
Louis= but not by modern standards. Unfortunately, the MJ story may
still be viewed as controversial in our culture.
> I think there are a number of novels these days that fall into this more
> expanded usage of feminist.
This intrigues me. It could explain why my novel CATCH THE LIGHTNING
has been called feminist, which I didn't expect. My other two have
obviously strong female characters; PRIMARY INVERSION is about a woman
who has the equivalent rank of admiral and THE LAST HAWK is about role
reversal (I reversed the roles in six different cultures and had a blast
with it <g>). Both stories operate on the implicit assumption that it
is normal for women to be in roles of authority and for men to respect
them. Not only has it not (overtly) ruffled feathers, it has been
acclaimed by some reviewers and readers.
Surprisingly (to me at least) the book that engendered hostility is
CATCH THE LIGHTNING, which is narrated by a seventeen year old Maya girl
in a far more traditional role. No one blinked at the fact that women
in the other two chose to have love relationships outside of marriage,
but in CTL it incensed some readers, even though the two characters
eventually married (which for science fiction is about as traditional as
it gets). The fact that a girl from the barrio is intelligent and
articulate, and eventually earns a number of advanced degrees, has also
inspired not only disbelief, but in some cases actual anger. (Another
reason I relate to Vonda's comment about being hammered for her
portrayal of MJ).
I'm not really sure I understand it.
I was also told the viewpoint of a seventeen year old girl wouldn't
interest readers (which has turned out to be false). I think this
touches on something else, that is, that a viewpoint which rewards
female preferences, traditional or otherwise, is viewed as challenging
accepted literary norms. So writing "men's fiction" (which is what many
people consider hard sf) from such a POV is seen by some as feminist
regardless, perhaps even more so, if she is traditional. Implicit in
all my stories is the assumption that a woman's take on life has value
regardless of who she is. I never thought of that as controversial, but
it seems that in some literary circles it is.
> I cannot regard the use of a female point of view character (or feminine) as
> equivalent to what I mean here. I think that there is still a difference
> between this novel and between the traditional romance novels that may have
> a female protagonist and point of view but which accept the cultural views
> and imperatives without attempting to subvert or question them in any way.
I have to disagree with you there. By their very nature, romance novels
question the cultural view and imperatives in a =major= way. Romance
loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about women,
sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had
=Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not
only would she have lived, she would have had a successful relationship
with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her
love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon
that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female
characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it.
Many romance readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet
they read novels that challenge our entire history of attitudes about
the sexual behavior of women, with the stories innocuously clothed in
the garb of tradition. The establishment pooh-poohs "women's
literature" as fluff, while the fluff goes on quietly breaking all the
rules. I think it's a hoot.
It says a lot that almost 50% of the books bought by the public are
romance novels. There are a lot of readers like myself who, although we
would appreciate a greater diversity of plot and story emphasis (and in
some cases better writing), still find the books satisfying because
reading them isn't like a slap in the face over the things we value.
Fortunately, the writing is better now than it used to be. Ah, that ol'
purple prose ...
"Oh no!" cried Blossom. "Don't impale me with your isomorphic
implement."
Harry the Hunk blinked. "What?"
"Well," Blossom said, "I figured that was better than 'your throbbing
rod of mixed-metaphored manhood.'"
> Or between this novel and canonical novels which also have female point of
> view characters. Just as a women is not "naturally" a feminist, a female point of view
> character does not make a book or narrative "feminist."
I agree. I wouldn't define female POV as synonymous with feminine POV.
By feminine, I mean a women's take on it rather than a male-identified
take on women, whether written by a man or a woman. I think that is why
the women in my other two books caused less hostility than the girl in
CTL. Those other female characters are strong in ways associated with
power in our culture. Not that I have any objection to the fact that
they have proved popular characters. I'm delighted. I think it says a
lot about the changes in recent years. I doubt a book like THE LAST
HAWK would have even found a publisher a few decades ago.
> There are a fair number of "canonical" novels from the last century which
> have female protagonists but which are not only by male writers but which do
> not question ithe social beliefs about women in any way: _Anna Kareninna_
> (spelling may be wrong) and _Madame Bovary_ are two I've studied.
Yes!
> Lots of male writers have female protagonists and point of view characters but they
> are not feminist, nor are female characters by female writers necessarily feminist.
I agree.
Best regards
Catherine
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:46 PDT