========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:25:56 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Russ (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Forwarded Message: From: Andrew M. Butler Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:05:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: Russ To: fm7@york.ac.uk Hi, This came out of a conversation at the first 1.5 session. Below find fifty out of 210 articles & reviews that at least cite Russ in them - some will obviously be of relevance to sf, others presumably cite her in passing (presumably, How to Suppress, To Write Like or On Strike). I can send the remaining in batches or a whole lot - the contents of the bibliographies of these articles would allow you to track down which will be the most relevant, and this can be supplied, although likely to be a large file. Cheers Andy Andrew M. Butler "We are on the brink of a new era, if only-" English Department, Hull University, Hull, UK Voice: 01482 465644 in UK AFFN, BSFA, Renaissance Forum etc. http://www.hull.ac.uk/Hull/EL_Web/amb/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:30:06 +0100 From: ihullib@alpha1.bids.ac.uk To: a.m.butler%english.hull.ac.uk@bids.ac.uk Copyright 1997, Institute for Scientific Information Inc. Database: Arts & Humanities Citation Index (1) TI: RELATIONS OF LITERATURE AND SCIENCE - A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCHOLARSHIP, 1978-79 AU: SCHATZBERG_W JN: CLIO-A JOURNAL OF LITERATURE HISTORY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, 1980, Vol.10, No.1, pp.57-84 (2) TI: FRENCH STRUCTURALISM TODAY AU: TROFIMOVA_RP JN: VOPROSY FILOSOFII, Vol.1981, No.7, pp.144-151 (3) TI: 'MRS DALLOWAY' AS LYRICAL PARADOX AU: FRYE_JS JN: BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORUM, 1982, Vol.23, No.1, pp.42-56 (4) TI: 'WHY MARRY' - THE NEW-WOMAN OF 1918 (ANALYSIS OF FEMALE PROTAGONIST IN WILLIAMS,JESSE,LYNCH PLAY) AU: STEPHENS_JL JN: THEATRE JOURNAL, 1982, Vol.34, No.2, pp.183-196 (5) TI: PRIMITIVISM IN FEMINIST UTOPIAS AU: KUMAR_K JN: ALTERNATIVE FUTURES, 1981, Vol.4, No.2-3, pp.61-66 (6) TI: FEMALE WITS AU: TOTH_E JN: MASSACHUSETTS REVIEW, 1981, Vol.22, No.4, pp.783-793 (7) TI: CLASS, RACE, SEX, SCIENTIFIC OBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE - A MARXIST- FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PRODUCTIVE NATURE AND SOME POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AU: HARAWAY_DJ JN: ARGUMENT, 1982, Vol.24, No.MAR-, pp.200-213 (8) TI: OUT OF THE ARCHIVES AND INTO THE ACADEMY - OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION IN LESBIAN LITERATURE AU: KEENER_KM JN: COLLEGE ENGLISH, 1982, Vol.44, No.3, pp.301-313 (9) TI: CROSS-GENDER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JOURNEY MOTIF IN SELECTED AFRO-AMERICAN FICTION AU: NAYLOR_CA JN: COLBY LIBRARY QUARTERLY, 1982, Vol.18, No.1, pp.26-38 (10) TI: WOMEN IN SCIENCE-FICTION - AN ANNOTATED SECONDARY BIBLIOGRAPHY AU: JONES_AH JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1982, Vol.23, No.1, pp.83-90 (11) TI: WHEN WOMEN RULE - DEFAMILIARIZATION IN THE SEX-ROLE REVERSAL UTOPIA (FICTIONAL LITERATURE) AU: PATAI_D JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1982, Vol.23, No.1, pp.56-69 (12) TI: BUTLER,OCTAVIA BLACK FEMALE FUTURE FICTION AU: FOSTER_FS JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1982, Vol.23, No.1, pp.37-49 (13) TI: A 'FEMALE MAN', THE MEDUSAN HUMOR OF RUSS,JOANNA AU: ROSINSKY_NM JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1982, Vol.23, No.1, pp.31-36 (14) TI: SCIENCE-FICTION AND THE SEX WAR - A WOMB OF ONES OWN AU: SPECTOR_JA JN: LITERATURE AND PSYCHOLOGY, 1981, Vol.31, No.1, pp.21-32 (15) TI: SCIENCE-FICTION - THE URGENCY OF STYLE AU: LAW_R JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1981, Vol.22, No.4, pp.325-333 (16) TI: THE DEFEAT OF A HERO - AUTONOMY AND SEXUALITY IN 'MY ANTONIA' (CATHER,WILLA) AU: LAMBERT_DG JN: AMERICAN LITERATURE, 1982, Vol.53, No.4, pp.676-690 (17) TI: ON FEMALE IDENTITY AND WRITING BY WOMEN (THE IMAGE OF THE FEMININE IDENTITY IN LITERATURE) AU: GARDINER_JK JN: CRITICAL INQUIRY, 1981, Vol.8, No.2, pp.347-361 (18) TI: THE BLANK PAGE AND THE ISSUES OF FEMALE CREATIVITY AU: GUBAR_S JN: CRITICAL INQUIRY, 1981, Vol.8, No.2, pp.243-263 (19) TI: FEMINIST UTOPIAS, A LITERATURE SURVEY AU: ANDERSON_E JN: SINN UND FORM, 1982, Vol.34, No.2, pp.443-455 (20) TI: WOMEN IN SCIENCE-FICTION AU: BAINBRIDGE_WS JN: SEX ROLES, 1982, Vol.8, No.10, pp.1081-1093 (21) TI: WOMAN AS ARTIST - THE FICTION OF LAVIN,MARY (WRITERS OF FICTION) AU: MESZAROS_PK JN: CRITIQUE-STUDIES IN MODERN FICTION, 1982, Vol.24, No.1, pp.39- 54 (22) TI: ON FEMINIST UTOPIAS AU: MELLOR_AK JN: WOMENS STUDIES-AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 1982, Vol.9, No.3, pp.241-262 (23) TI: WORLD VIEWS IN UTOPIAN NOVELS BY WOMEN AU: FREIBERT_LM JN: JOURNAL OF POPULAR CULTURE, 1983, Vol.17, No.1, pp.49-60 (24) TI: SCIENCE-FICTION AND FANTASY AU: WYTENBROEK_J JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1982, Vol.23, No.4, pp.321-332 (25) TI: PONIATOWSKA,ELENA 'HASTA NO VERTE JESUS MIO' - THE REMAKING OF THE IMAGE OF WOMAN AU: HANCOCK_J JN: HISPANIA-A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE TEACHING OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE, 1983, Vol.66, No.3, pp.353-359 (26) TI: SPECULATIVE PORN - AESTHETIC FORM IN DELANY,SAMUEL,R. THE 'TIDES OF LUST' AU: RENAULT_G JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1983, Vol.24, No.2, pp.116-129 (27) TI: THE BATTLE OF THE BOOKS, THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES, WOOLF,VIRGINIA VITA-NUOVA AU: GILBERT_SM JN: MICHIGAN QUARTERLY REVIEW, 1984, Vol.23, No.2, pp.171-195 (28) TI: THE IDEAL WOMAN IN 2 FEMINIST SCIENCE-FICTION UTOPIAS AU: MILLER_M JN: SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES, 1983, Vol.10, No.JUL, pp.191-198 (29) TI: THE FEMINIST CRITIQUE - MASTERING OUR MONSTROSITY AU: BENSTOCK_S JN: TULSA STUDIES IN WOMENS LITERATURE, 1983, Vol.2, No.2, pp.137- 149 (30) TI: TOWARDS AN OPEN-ENDED UTOPIA (SCIENCE-FICTION) AU: SOMAY_B JN: SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES, 1984, Vol.11, No.MAR, pp.25-38 (31) TI: DR-JEKYLL AND MRS-HYDE, GENDER-RELATED CONFLICT IN THE SCIENCE- FICTION OF RUSS,JOANNA AU: SPECTOR_JA JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1983, Vol.24, No.4, pp.370-379 (32) TI: HOW TO SUPPRESS WOMENS WRITING - RUSS,J AU: GARRIGAN_KO JN: MODERN FICTION STUDIES, 1984, Vol.30, No.2, pp.373-376 (33) TI: TEXTUALITY SEXUALITY AU: BASSNETT_S JN: ESSAYS IN POETICS, 1984, Vol.9, No.1, pp.1-15 (34) TI: RUSS,JOANNA AND THE LITERATURE OF EXHAUSTION AU: LAW_R JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1984, Vol.25, No.2, pp.146-156 (35) TI: DAME UNISE, FEMINIST MAIDEN WHO FARES WELL WITH THE PATRIARCHY - SALMONSON,JESSICA,AMANDA THE PRODIGAL DAUGHTER AND THE EMERGING TRADITION IN FEMINIST SPECULATIVE FICTION AU: BARR_MS JN: WOMENS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL FORUM, 1984, Vol.7, No.2, pp.111- 115 (36) TI: SPECIAL ISSUE - OH WELL, ORWELL - BIG SISTER IS WATCHING HERSELF - FEMINIST SCIENCE-FICTION IN 1984 AU: BARR_MS JN: WOMENS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL FORUM, 1984, Vol.7, No.2, pp.83-84 (37) TI: AN BUTLER,OCTAVIA,E. BIBLIOGRAPHY AU: WEIXLMANN_J JN: BLACK AMERICAN LITERATURE FORUM, 1984, Vol.18, No.2, pp.88-89 (38) TI: TYPES OF WOMEN RELIGIOUS LEADERS AU: HUTCH_RA JN: RELIGION, 1984, Vol.14, No.2, pp.155-173 (39) TI: DALMADIGO,ELIYAHU 'BEHINAT HA-DAT' - HEBREW - RUSS,J JN: ZION-A QUARTERLY FOR RESEARCH IN JEWISH HISTORY, 1984, Vol.49, No.4, p.453 (40) TI: RUMOURS FROM THE CAULDRON - COMPETITION AMONG FEMINIST WRITERS AU: MINER_V JN: WOMENS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL FORUM, 1985, Vol.8, No.1, pp.45-50 (41) TI: THE 2ND DESTRUCTION OF PLATH,SYLVIA AU: AXELROD_SG JN: AMERICAN POETRY REVIEW, 1985, Vol.14, No.2, pp.17-18 (42) TI: THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE-FICTION IN THE CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN NOVEL AU: MATHIESON_K JN: SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES, 1985, Vol.12, No.MAR, pp.22-32 (43) TI: STILL PRACTICE, A WRESTED ALPHABET - TOWARD A FEMINIST AESTHETIC AU: MARCUS_J JN: TULSA STUDIES IN WOMENS LITERATURE, 1984, Vol.3, No.1-2, pp.79- 97 (44) TI: A MANIFESTO FOR CYBORGS - SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIALIST FEMINISM IN THE 1980S AU: HARAWAY_D JN: SOCIALIST REVIEW, 1985, No.80, pp.65-107 (45) TI: HOW TO SUPPRESS WOMENS WRITING - RUSS,J AU: HOWARD_J JN: MINNESOTA REVIEW, 1984, No.23, pp.203-208 (46) TI: ANATOMY OF DIFFERENCE - TOWARD A CLASSIFICATION OF FEMINIST THEORY AU: MCFADDEN_M JN: WOMENS STUDIES INTERNATIONAL FORUM, 1984, Vol.7, No.6, pp.495- 504 (47) TI: THE YEARS SCHOLARSHIP IN SCIENCE-FICTION, FANTASY, AND HORROR LITERATURE - 1983 AU: TYMN_MB JN: EXTRAPOLATION, 1985, Vol.26, No.2, pp.85-142 (48) TI: THE MIRROR AND THE SHADOW - PLATH POETICS OF SELF-DOUBT AU: AXELROD_SG JN: CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE, 1985, Vol.26, No.3, pp.286-301 (49) TI: TRUE STORIES - WOMENS WRITING IN SCIENCE-FICTION AU: MADDERN_P JN: MEANJIN, 1985, Vol.44, No.1, pp.110-123 (50) TI: THE GREAT BRAIN ROBBERY - CANADAS UNIVERSITIES ON THE ROAD TO RUIN - BERCUSON,DJ, BOTHWELL,R, GRANATSTEIN,JL AU: PIERSON_RR JN: JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES, 1985, Vol.20, No.1, pp.154-161 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:44:28 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:16:58 -0500 lissa bloomer wrote: > > a couple of years ago, one of my students (in my sci-fi class)(taught > during summer school) blurted out, "why can't we just read this stuff for > fun???!!!" > > i had to keep my cool, and restrain fantastical thoughts of a > mac10convertedsemiautomaticmachinegun. > > i wanted to ask this person why the hell was she in college? I am going to be very rude.....What appalling arrogance! Whilst I understand that critical analysis can be interesting and beneficial, most *good* fiction was written to be *fun* (using a very broad definition of that word) to read. One of the reasons I have little tolerance for much critical work in sf (I am a history lecturer) is the priviliging of boring but intellectually complex texts over fascinating and fun but not terribly well written ones. (This seriously skews sf syallabi away from any fan consensus of the *best*). I have heard English literature professors suggesting that critics should concetrate on the texts they do not like, rather than the one's that they do, and outside of sf, the most common assumption thrown at sf is that it cannot be good because it *is* fun. The starting point of all critical thought is usually either enjoyment or hostility. If we do not want to mistake cynicism for critical ability the more we stress the *fun* side of the material we read the better. I feel very strongly that the best entry into material is to enjoy it. Whilst I accept the latter part of lissa's argument that there are depths beyond fun worth plumbing, I still retain more sympathy for the student than for lissa. Reading should be fun. Farah. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:09:50 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII There is a Mike Levey also on the SFRA list -- are you the same one and am I about to embark on the same discussion on Heinlein with you on this list as I am on the other? All teh best Farah Mendlesohn. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:08:05 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:29:48 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > I taught The Female Man last semester in a course on science fiction and > gender. Also did books or stories by LeGuin, Slonczewski, Bujold, Charnas, > Arnason, Tiptree, Heinlein, Piercy, Griffith, C.L.Moore, McCaffrey, Delany, > etc. > > Of all the stories we read, The Female Man was clearly the least > successful, at least in terms of class participation. Most of the > students hated it and/or were totally confused by it. In part this was > simply because the novel is complex and hard to follow, but many felt > that it was dated, that too many of its literary and historical allusions > were obscure because they were so clearly tied to the 60s and 70s. > > I'd be interested to hear from others who have taught this book. Did you > have a similar experience? Did you find successful avenues into the text? Yes, but keep trying. each time I teach it I receive different reactions and there is always at least one person who is so overwhelmed by it that it makes up for the other hostility. > > It might be worth mentioning that in a poll conducted at the end of the > class the most popular stories were 1) McCaffrey's "The Ship Who Sang," > 2) Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, 3) Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh > Mistress, 4 LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, and 5) Griffith's > Ammonite tied with Bujold's Ethan of Athos. The McCaffrey and Heinlein > stories, of course, were in there to show old-fashioned, sexist attitudes. > Surprise! Are you attempting any sort of historicity? If so, Heinlein's Beyond this Horizon or The Menace From Earth still manages to be a lot less sexist that McCaffery and truly radical for its period. Give Heinlein a fair chance! And try Tiptree's The Screwfly Solution or Houston Houston Do You Read. Farah. > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:13:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:16:58 -0500 lissa bloomer wrote: > > > > a couple of years ago, one of my students (in my sci-fi class)(taught > > during summer school) blurted out, "why can't we just read this stuff for > > fun???!!!" > > > > i had to keep my cool, and restrain fantastical thoughts of a > > mac10convertedsemiautomaticmachinegun. > > > > i wanted to ask this person why the hell was she in college? > > > > I am going to be very rude.....What appalling arrogance! Whilst I understand that > critical analysis can be interesting and beneficial, most *good* fiction was written > to be *fun* (using a very broad definition of that word) to read. One of the reasons I > have little tolerance for much critical work in sf (I am a history lecturer) is the > priviliging of boring but intellectually complex texts over fascinating and fun but not > terribly well written ones. (This seriously skews sf syallabi away from any fan > consensus of the *best*). I have heard English literature professors suggesting > that critics should concetrate on the texts they do not like, rather than the one's that > they do, and outside of sf, the most common assumption thrown at sf is that it > cannot be good because it *is* fun. > > > The starting point of all critical thought is usually either enjoyment or hostility. If we > do not want to mistake cynicism for critical ability the more we stress the *fun* side > of the material we read the better. I feel very strongly that the best entry into > material is to enjoy it. Whilst I accept the latter part of lissa's argument that there > are depths beyond fun worth plumbing, I still retain more sympathy for the student > than for lissa. Reading should be fun. > > > Farah. > I don't believe that Lissa ever said that reading shouldn't be fun, or that fun wasn't important in reading, did she? Essentially, as I interpreted her e-mail (not to put words in her mouth), she just said that you should think about and understand what you read. For most educated people this adds to the fun. I've been an academic most of my adult life and I've published hundreds of articles, book reviews, and other pieces of non-fiction. With the exception of a dozen or so reviews of books that I was assigned by various editors, however, I don't think I've ever published anything about a book I didn't like.(I take that back--I did once write a nasty piece about John Norman). Writing, even academic writing, is not only time consuming but involves an enormous emotional commitment to the texts you're working on. Forcing yourself to devote hours to a book, story, or poem you dislike would be sheer hell. In fact book reviewers are much more likely to write negatively about texts than academics are. Most academic writing assumes the quality of the text being discussed. If the scholar didn't think the story was good s/he generally wouldn't have devoted any time to it. My assumption concerning the academics who you mention as "privileging boring but intellectually complex texts" is that you find those texts boring but that the academics involved did not. I'm sure that the students in my SF and gender class thought I was "privileging boring but intellectually complex texts" when I assigned The Female Man and The Door into Ocean, two books I love, when they'd rather have been reading easier stories. Whoever that professor was who you heard recommend to people that they should write about works that they don't like, s/he was an idiot (on this one topic, at least) and certainly doesn't represent the normal run of academics, scholars, and critics. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:33:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:29:48 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > > > > I taught The Female Man last semester in a course on science fiction and > > gender. Also did books or stories by LeGuin, Slonczewski, Bujold, Charnas, > > Arnason, Tiptree, Heinlein, Piercy, Griffith, C.L.Moore, McCaffrey, Delany, > > etc. > > > > Of all the stories we read, The Female Man was clearly the least > > successful, at least in terms of class participation. Most of the > > students hated it and/or were totally confused by it. In part this was > > simply because the novel is complex and hard to follow, but many felt > > that it was dated, that too many of its literary and historical allusions > > were obscure because they were so clearly tied to the 60s and 70s. > > > > I'd be interested to hear from others who have taught this book. Did you > > have a similar experience? Did you find successful avenues into the text? > > > Are you attempting any sort of historicity? If so, Heinlein's Beyond this Horizon or > The Menace From Earth still manages to be a lot less sexist that McCaffery and > truly radical for its period. Give Heinlein a fair chance! And try Tiptree's The > Screwfly Solution or Houston Houston Do You Read. > > Farah. Yes, the course was historically based. I used the Moon is a Harsh Mistress intentionally because I wanted something to contrast with the other, clearly feminist works we were using. I also discussed Heinlein's odd, but very real "proto-feminism" (or whatever you want to call it). I think that the bunch of students I was teaching would have hated "Houston Houston" in part for the same reasons that they hated The Female Man. They may have been initially impressed by the quality of Tiptree's writing, but, due to the ending and an unwillingness to think too deeply about what they read (a glancing reference here to another thread going on elsewhere on this list!), they would probably have seen the story naively as nothing more as an anti-male diatribe. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:39:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > There is a Mike Levey also on the SFRA list -- are you the same one and am I about > to embark on the same discussion on Heinlein with you on this list as I am on the > other? > > All teh best > > Farah Mendlesohn. > Yep, I'm the same Mike Levy (only one e). I'm ubiquitous. If we start having similar conversations on two different lists though this could get very confusing, both for us and for the people who are only on one of the two lists! Martha Bartter may be the only one who can figure out what we're talking about!. Oddly enough, however, there is another Michael Levy who is active both on the internet and in science fiction. He runs a Jack Vance homepage and people keep getting us confused. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:55:38 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: sue hagedorn Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > a couple of years ago, one of my students (in my sci-fi class)(taught >> > during summer school) blurted out, "why can't we just read this stuff for >> > fun???!!!" Shouldn't the fun reading be the FIRST reading--and then you can show them the fun has only started! For most educated >people this adds to the fun. Exactly. >Forcing yourself to devote hours to a book, story, or poem you dislike would >be sheer hell. Most of us do it only once and then remember the painful process. I'm sure that the students in my SF and >gender class thought I was "privileging boring but intellectually >complex texts" when I assigned The Female Man and The Door into Ocean, >two books I love, when they'd rather have been reading easier stories. What exactly did they object to in Door Into Ocean? I would love to teach it, but I've had a bad experience before--I taught More Than Human, and the students were universally thumbs down--I haven't yet figured out if it was because it was too dated, not interesting to them, or if my presentation fell flat. > >Whoever that professor was who you heard recommend to people that they >should write about works that they don't like, s/he was an idiot (on this >one topic, at least) and certainly doesn't represent the normal run of >academics, scholars, and critics. Usually those who make such pronouncements are the ones who "talk a good game" but rarely publish--and rarely put out publishable work. > > i wanted to ask this person why the hell was she in college? Most of us in academia would like students to leave the class with more than they came in with. A critical/analytical view can serve them well throughout their lives. They ARE in college, not a reading circle. They can have fun while they're learning (I don't know any good teacher who wouldn't rather have fun with the class)--but it does take work--and so there will always be some grumbles! Until students learn that expanding their minds CAN be fun, I also wonder what they're doing in college other than marking time--or avoiding the world of work. Let's hope the revelation hits them soon so that the time in higher education isn't mostly wasted. Sue Hagedorn hagedors@vt.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:33:03 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Andrea L. Klein" Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Tanya Wood wrote: > What do people think of Russ's conceptualisation of female subjectivity? > One > writer (Marilyn somebody, in her very good preface to the FM) suggested > that the 4 J's together would constitute one unified > female subject- an ideal which current conditions make impossible. Other > critics see Russ as completely debunking any idea of stable subjectivity, > utopian or otherwise. > On the other hand, Russ's oxymoronic project to become a "female man" > seems to reach towards females becoming human, suggesting (of course) > that they are not human so far but also suggesting that humanity is > something stable to be reached for. > I find this book very hard to pin down (and hence extremely interesting). me too. I guess I read the Js as female possibilities. They are four possible women, from Russ infinite universes, that have been socially constructed by their world's unique history and ideology. I don't think that they constitue one unified female subject, unless that subject is "everywoman". I just argued in a paper that together they form a fragmented hero. (Does this hero concept contradict what i said above? I don't know, hope not:) I was talking about J's struggle against oppressive ideologies that limit personal development. Their interaction, and the education they each receive because of that interaction, defines their heroism... I contrasted Russ's J with Cadigan's M in _Fools_, if anyone wants to discuss that one :) But again, I still haven't "pinned FM down" and I'm not sure that one can. Andrea Klein ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:45:34 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:18:02 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear All, Apologies- I didn't read over my Female Man response well enough, leaving a sentence incomplete. The sentence concerned the novel's violence, which for many of my students was a key reason for hostility towards the novel. Women, should (as we all know) be ladylike and self effacing and NOT slam people's thumbs in doors, break arms, or kill idiot boss-men.Incidently, one way I tried to "sell" the book to the class was through the novel's humour. Judging from the blank looks in the class, I am the only person in the world who found the book funny. Mike Levy's comments on students, especially women's studies students, disliking The FM and The Women Men Don't See make things seem very bleak. And as for LIKING such stupidly romantic and grimly heterosexual nonsense as Anne McCaffrey's *The Ship Who Sang*......words fail, they really do. I found *The Ship* very funny in places, especially the moment where Neill tries to penetrate Helga's Hull in order to screw her non-existent (but genetically very attractive) body.I wonder if this notion of Helga as "essentially" really cute makes her attractive to male and female readers, where the women in Tiptree's "Women that Men Don't See" are after all plain and easily ignorable.Ironies, Ironies. Tiptree's defeatism on women's rights may be completely correct. Has the beauty myth won so easily? And to audiences that really should be critical? I have to wonder what sort of "women's studies" programme is being run at this university.....is feminism being firmly excised from it? Yours despairingly, Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:48:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > I'm sure that the students in my SF and > >gender class thought I was "privileging boring but intellectually > >complex texts" when I assigned The Female Man and The Door into Ocean, > >two books I love, when they'd rather have been reading easier stories. > > What exactly did they object to in Door Into Ocean? I would love to teach > it, but I've had a bad experience before--I taught More Than Human, and the > students were universally thumbs down--I haven't yet figured out if it was > because it was too dated, not interesting to them, or if my presentation > fell flat. I should mention that Door into Ocean is probably out of print now and unavailable. Our university bookstore was able to round up enough copies by contacting a number of their branch stores since the distributors and publisher didn't have any. Based on class evaluations and comments during discussion, it was too complex and too slow, nothing much happened, passive resistance doesn't work and isn't very believable, suicide is not an acceptable option, and they couldn't connect with the viewpoint characters. Sigh. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:05:16 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: sue hagedorn Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> What exactly did they object to in Door Into Ocean? I would love to teach >> it I'm really interested in Door Into Ocean for its (seemingly) representation of precepts of feminist biology. I wonder if students would have a different reaction if they knew the author was a practicing geneticist? (I'm working on a paper on fictional representations of feminist biology written by female scientists.) Probably not. I mirror your sighs. Sue Hagedorn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:07:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Tanya Wood wrote: > 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). The hostility that young men feel towards such texts isn't surprising, of course. I agree with you that The Female Man really isn't addressed to men and that it's undoubtedly good for men to have to deal with being the other once in a while--I can still remember how strange it was for me to read the book in my early twenties. That women feel hostility toward The Female Man, however, and for that matter toward many 60-80s feminists texts, is both disturbing and fascinating. One of my students told me that this is a Generation-X thing and that I couldn't expect to understand it. (This was the first time that I am aware of that I was ever the victim of verbal age-ism. Strange experience.) She saw current student hostility or at best disinterest towards feminism as similar to student attitudes towards Vietnam. Interestingly enough she saw the generational gap as much more important than the gender gap. > > 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. This is an important point, I think. It's hard to differentiate sometimes between a lack of understanding and not wanting to understand something that makes you uncomfortable. 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. You're right, of course. This reminds me of the snit my 9 year old threw last week when I told her she was too old to need someone to cut up her chicken for her and that she needed to learn to do it herself. > > 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. Yes, you're right, but tell this to a room full of female college students who insist that they themselves have never been victimized by sexism and never will be. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:03:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 13:18 4/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >Dear All, Apologies- I didn't read over my Female Man response well >enough, leaving a sentence incomplete. The sentence concerned the >novel's violence, which for many of my students was a key reason for >hostility towards the novel. Women, should (as we all know) be ladylike >and self effacing and NOT slam people's thumbs in doors, break arms, or >kill idiot boss-men.Incidently, one way I tried to "sell" the book to the >class was through the novel's humour. Judging from the blank looks in the >class, I am the only person in the world who found the book funny. > >Mike Levy's comments on students, especially women's >studies students, disliking The FM and The Women Men Don't See make >things seem very bleak. And as for LIKING such stupidly romantic >and grimly heterosexual nonsense as Anne McCaffrey's *The Ship Who >Sang*......words fail, they really do. I >found *The Ship* very funny in places, especially the moment where Neill >tries to penetrate Helga's Hull in order to screw her non-existent (but >genetically very attractive) body.I wonder if this notion of Helga as >"essentially" really cute makes her attractive to male and female readers, >where the women in Tiptree's "Women that Men Don't See" are after all >plain >and easily ignorable.Ironies, Ironies. Tiptree's defeatism on women's >rights may be completely >correct. Has the beauty myth won so easily? And to audiences >that really should be critical? I have to wonder what sort of "women's >studies" programme is being run at this university.....is feminism being >firmly excised from it? > >Yours despairingly, > >Tanya. > Robin McKinley does a really powerful number on the "really attractive" attraction in _Deerskin_ which is our final novel in the fantasy class this semester. We have some students in the class with a feminist orientation (Women's Studies minor), and some with a very traditional outlook on fantasy. They are dissecting the "beauty myth" rather cogently from that book... Have any of you taught/read it? I find it very powerful (more so in a way than Russ, because it's more psychologically sympathetic), but absolutely ruthless. We're only just opening the conversation at this point in class, but I expect things will get even more exciting soon. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:27:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janet Dowling Subject: being new to the list I'm just clocking in and saying HI. I feel that as a new person to the list, it is a bit voyeuristic reading the mail without letting people know that I am looking in, I am impressed with what i have read so far, and I'm feeling pretty challenged at what I ahve read, andf how I have interpreted it. Some stuff i read a long time ago, and i went off SF for a long time. I'm back into it, and thus was pleased to see the list. I feel that with the recent lists of recommended reading, I shall be busy for quite a while doing some reading. I don't have a background in literature criticism, and mostly I take things at face value - may be too niavely. I was interested in the stuff about Aliens as i had understood that the part was originally written for a man, and that it was only cast as a woman at the last moment when all the scripts had ben written. This ahs always coloured my watching of the film, and I didn't allow my self to give it any other interprationas it was really a "man's" story And I am still struggling with ideas such as dystropia (what!!). I'll get my dictionary out and see if I can keep up with you all Any way, happy reading - Janet Dowling ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:09:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970415140532.28a72d86@academic.truman.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Martha Bartter wrote: NH: I've read it. Have always found the folk tale on which it's based terrifying and fascinating. You're right; the book was ruthless and powerful. Be interesting to know your students' reactions. -nalo > > > Robin McKinley does a really powerful number on the "really attractive" > attraction in _Deerskin_ which is our final novel in the fantasy class > this semester. We have some students in the class with a feminist > orientation (Women's Studies minor), and some with a very traditional > outlook on fantasy. They are dissecting the "beauty myth" rather > cogently from that book... > > Have any of you taught/read it? I find it very powerful (more so in a > way than Russ, because it's more psychologically sympathetic), but > absolutely ruthless. We're only just opening the conversation at this > point in class, but I expect things will get even more exciting soon. > > > Martha Bartter > Truman State University > "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:12:17 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: being new to the list In-Reply-To: <970415162541_-1702957963@emout08.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Janet Dowling wrote: > I don't have a background in literature criticism NH: Me neither, although in my job I get to sit in on literary grant adjudications by writers who do. I'm absorbing some of it by osmosis, but by no means all. Race you for the dictionary! -nalo , and mostly I take things > at face value - may be too niavely. I was interested in the stuff about > Aliens as i had understood that the part was originally written for a man, > and that it was only cast as a woman at the last moment when all the scripts > had ben written. This ahs always coloured my watching of the film, and I > didn't allow my self to give it any other interprationas it was really a > "man's" story > > And I am still struggling with ideas such as dystropia (what!!). I'll get my > dictionary out and see if I can keep up with you all > > Any way, happy reading - > > > Janet Dowling > "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:09:10 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +++jY? (?? ??E ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:24:27 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezesRE: my own take on this Hi, One thing I will have to cautious of when I am given the opportunity to teach a literature course, is to take into consideration the reasons the works to be read and analysed are being used. I am a college senior now, with one year to go for my bachelors, and have been exposed to a variety of methods when it comes to literature courses. What I mean by being cautious, I want to make sure that by the time a course ends at final exam time that my students have been able to examine a representative body of works as specified within the genre, whether American Literature to 1800 or Feminist Science Fiction of the late 1970s. That said, I want to make it clear that I have to consider that the course these students are enrolled in is a step to prepare them possibly for certain examinations needed to be admitted to graduate school. Within the confines or boundaries of these considerations, I need to make a representative list of works that will represent the genre to be examined. A componant that I wish would be all inclusive is that the representative works to be used in the course are entertaining to my students. When you discuss the merits of an entertaining work of literature, you know everyone has their own interests when it comes to being entertained. You cannot please everyone. It is a given and I have not graduated from college yet that there are works chosen to be read in class that will be dry, sermon-like, outright boring, etc., and yet in order to fufill the requirements for passing the course I had better do my job as a student and analyse the text. It is okay for a student to say this bored me or I did not like this or this is so antiquated...it could take years to figure out why the student did not get it, why he/she did not like it etc. Until recently, I only thought of Science Fiction as a "fun" way to escape and never considered it a literary genre until I read Nancy Kress' Beggars In Spain. It may be hard to take in when a student says "I thought this was supposed to be fun," there could be a gazillion reasons why they do not understand yet the importance of applying critical analysis to a work of science fiction, but it wastes a lot of energy to even try to figure out. My job I hope will be to guide a classroom of students toward an understanding of a particular genre, not to argue the fun out of a course text. Jo Ann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:19:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: being new to the list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Ms. Dowling says: > it is a bit voyeuristic reading the mail without letting people know that I am > looking in, You're right, so introducing myself to the list: a Minneapolis journalist & bookscout (hunter of used and rare books). Longtime casual SF reader, trying to get more serious about knowing the genre. Looking forward to my third Wiscon. > I feel that with the recent lists of recommended > reading, I shall be busy for quite a while doing some reading. Very similar experience for me. I'm in a good reading/book club, which helps (we've done Rebecca Ore & Karen Joy Fowler recently). > And I am still struggling with ideas such as dystopia (what!!). I'll get my > dictionary out and see if I can keep up with you all Best short definition of dystopia I've ever seen is cited in my sig... -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be." - Yogi Berra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:52:14 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Arrrrrrrgh! > >Yes, you're right, but tell this to a room full of female college students >who insist that they themselves have never been victimized by sexism and >never will be. > >Mike And what reality do *they* exist in? I wanna move there! Alternate universe? What? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:13:26 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: The Female Man Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Tanya Wood wrote: >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), I think that Russ was writing to whoever might be interested, rather than to to either sex in particular. As she once wrote (re: the "deadlock" of sexism: "I think breaking the deadlock has to take many forms, one of which is political action, of whatever kind one feels congenial. I tend to Write Letters myself, to magazines, Congress, NYS versions thereof, newpapers, even fanzines. There is nothing like _public_ protest to lift the spirits." I don't know if she considers The Female Man as such a protest, but to me it sounds appropriate. By the way, that quote came from an excellent written symposium called Khatru 3 & 4, which took place in 1975. Some of the more well-known participants included Russ, Suzy McKee Charnas, Ursula Le Guin, Samuel Delany, James Tiptree Jr., and Kate Wilhelm. A reprinted booklet of the symposium can be obtained for $16.50 from Jeanne Gomoll, whose e-mail address is artbrau@aol.com. She also wrote: >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.... To which Michael Levy responded: >Yes, you're right, but tell this to a room full of female college students >who insist that they themselves have never been victimized by sexism and >never will be. This especially strikes me after getting the latest alumni magazine from my alma mater, Hamilton College. The theme of the magazine was "Women on the Hill", with particular focus on Kirkland College, a "sister school" to Hamilton that existed for less than 10 years before it was subsumed by Hamilton. The various perspective pieces by women graduates have barely anything to say about sexism, instead denying it's an issue with statements like, "I never had a class in which I felt uncomfortable speaking because I was a woman..." That may be true, but it leaves the impression that there's nothing left to do, and that ALL women are doing this well. (The alumni magazine's editorial policies obviously have something to do with this imbalance.) Of course, it's not very convincing to tell someone they're being oppressed if they simply don't feel that way. But speaking personally, it took me some time to develop as a feminist. I loved The Female Man when I read it the summer after graduating from college. I might not have felt the same way if it had been assigned reading. -- Janice Dawley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 01:41:25 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: being new to the list In-Reply-To: <199704160019.UAA294444@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: I had an absolute zinging blast at WisCon 20 last year. (Nicola, sorry I didn't get to meet you then, but I think I was on the opposite program track from hell). If that one was anything to go by, I highly recommend WisCon. The panels were interesting, I got to meet Ursula Le Guin (and take part in a performance/reading of an excerpt of _Always Coming Home_, which is a book of hers that I revere). I have a Toronto friend who has avoided WisCon because he thinks he'd be out of place by reason of his gender. Nope. Lots of people hanging around talking about books. I was in heaven. -nalo On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > Ms. Dowling says: > > it is a bit voyeuristic reading the mail without letting people know > that I am > > looking in, > > You're right, so introducing myself to the list: a Minneapolis > journalist & bookscout (hunter of used and rare books). Longtime casual > SF reader, trying to get more serious about knowing the genre. Looking > forward to my third Wiscon. > > > I feel that with the recent lists of recommended > > reading, I shall be busy for quite a while doing some reading. > > Very similar experience for me. I'm in a good reading/book club, which > helps (we've done Rebecca Ore & Karen Joy Fowler recently). > > > And I am still struggling with ideas such as dystopia (what!!). I'll > get my > > dictionary out and see if I can keep up with you all > > Best short definition of dystopia I've ever seen is cited in my sig... > -- > > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > "If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be." - Yogi Berra > "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:15:09 -1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel L Krashin Subject: Re: The Female Man >From: farah mendlesohn > > I taught The Female Man last semester in a course on science fiction and > gender. Also did books or stories by LeGuin, Slonczewski, Bujold, Charnas, > Arnason, Tiptree, Heinlein, Piercy, Griffith, C.L.Moore, McCaffrey, Delany, > etc. > > Of all the stories we read, The Female Man was clearly the least > successful, at least in terms of class participation. > SNIP > It might be worth mentioning that in a poll conducted at the end of the > class the most popular stories were 1) McCaffrey's "The Ship Who Sang," > 2) Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, 3) Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh > Mistress, 4 LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, and 5) Griffith's > Ammonite tied with Bujold's Ethan of Athos. The McCaffrey and Heinlein > stories, of course, were in there to show old-fashioned, sexist attitudes. > Surprise! 1)You have to take into account that _The Female Man_ is something of a polemic. It's not trying to make you like it, it's trying to start a fight (or at least an argument). McCaffrey and Heinlein, on the other hand, are trading largely in Sense-of-Wonder. Does it surprise you that people would rather be dazzled than argued with? In support of my point, _Woman on the Edge of Time_ , which you list as coming in #2 is both radical and an engrossing tale. (BTW, has anyone else noticed how much the dystopia in WOTEOT resembles cyberpunk?) As an experiment, you might try using "When It Changed" in a lineup of short fiction -- as someone pointed out already, the story packs a much bigger emotional punch... It rocked my 14 year old whiteboy world... 2)It's easy to forget that Anne McCaffrey wasn't always the mistress of Pern INC. I gather, from the awards of the time, that she was something of a groundbreaking and innovative writer in the late 1960's. (Although not a feminist one.) Cs "Ship" really that bad? Contrary to Tanya Wood's comment, I recall the scene ofI sexual frustration in "The Ship who Sang" to be more nuanced and moving than just a scenario of failed rape. YMMV. Daniel Krashin [re-lurking] ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:30:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tara Ayres Subject: Re: being new to the list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm a regular at WisCon, and it is a wonderful event. Four days of talking about feminist SF, getting to hear a variety of new work read by the authors, lots of information about new things to explore. I second Nalo's recommendation. Tara ---------- From: Nalo Hopkinson[SMTP:bl213@FREENET.TORONTO.ON.CA] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 12:41 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: being new to the list NH: I had an absolute zinging blast at WisCon 20 last year. (Nicola, sorry I didn't get to meet you then, but I think I was on the opposite program track from hell). If that one was anything to go by, I highly recommend WisCon. The panels were interesting, I got to meet Ursula Le Guin (and take part in a performance/reading of an excerpt of _Always Coming Home_, which is a book of hers that I revere). I have a Toronto friend who has avoided WisCon because he thinks he'd be out of place by reason of his gender. Nope. Lots of people hanging around talking about books. I was in heaven. -nalo On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > Ms. Dowling says: > > it is a bit voyeuristic reading the mail without letting people know > that I am > > looking in, > > You're right, so introducing myself to the list: a Minneapolis > journalist & bookscout (hunter of used and rare books). Longtime casual > SF reader, trying to get more serious about knowing the genre. Looking > forward to my third Wiscon. > > > I feel that with the recent lists of recommended > > reading, I shall be busy for quite a while doing some reading. > > Very similar experience for me. I'm in a good reading/book club, which > helps (we've done Rebecca Ore & Karen Joy Fowler recently). > > > And I am still struggling with ideas such as dystopia (what!!). I'll > get my > > dictionary out and see if I can keep up with you all > > Best short definition of dystopia I've ever seen is cited in my sig... > -- > > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > "If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be." - Yogi Berra > "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:50:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: <11230439@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Daniel L Krashin wrote: > > 2)It's easy to forget that Anne McCaffrey wasn't always the mistress of > Pern INC. I gather, from the awards of the time, that she was something of a > groundbreaking and innovative writer in the late 1960's. (Although not a > feminist one.) Cs "Ship" really that bad? Contrary to Tanya Wood's comment, > I recall the scene ofI sexual frustration in "The Ship who Sang" to be more > nuanced and moving than just a scenario of failed rape. YMMV. Daniel Krashin NH: YMMV? Your move? Young Mothers Make Vittles? I remember that scene. I read the "ship's" human body as being trapped and vulnerable, so I found that scene threatening and icky. Meant that I never did find the male pilot dashing or sympathetic, but egoistic and self-involved. But in terms of the 60's and 70's, I suspect that McCaffrey's work was ground-breaking, because as coy and sexually determined as her whole Pern society is, women are active and vocal participants in it; out there on dragonback fighting Thread, and being scientists, and so on. I devoured her books when I was younger, then it slowly filtered through that they weren't exactly progressive, not just with relation to gender, but to race. -nalo "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." Dionne Brand, _Another Place, Not Here_ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:24:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Judith A. Little" Subject: Dystopia, Utopia: Janet Dowling's Intro Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For Janet: From my syllabus-- (probably more than you want to know!) What is a Utopia? A Utopia is a place or state of political and social perfection. Utopian fiction portrays a visionary system of political and social perfection by providing a normative and evaluative description of the perfectly good society. Features of Utopias often include (1) a stable and (2) cooperative society wherein (3) the benefits (goods, resources) and the burdens (e.g., distasteful but necessary services, taxes) are equally shared and (4) everyone engages in meaningful work and leisure. What is a Dystopia? According to M. Keith Booker, 'dystopian literature' (1) directly opposes "utopian thought, warning against the potential negative consequences of arrant utopianism" and (2) criticizes "existing social conditions or political systems, either through the critical examination of the utopian premises upon which those conditions and systems are based or through the imaginative extension of those conditions and systems into different contexts that more clearly reveal their flaws and contradictions." Both Utopias and Dystopias are calls to social and political action: Utopias, by describing the world in which we want to live, and Dystopias, by warning us of the implications of current social and political trends and by prodding us to act on these warnings. What is a Feminist Utopia? Sally Miller Gearhart sets out four characteristics of Feminist Utopian literature: it "a. contrasts the present with an envisioned idealized society (separated from the present by time or space); b. offers a comprehensive critique of present values/conditions; c. sees men or male institutions as a major cause of present social ills; and d. presents women not only as at least the equals of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions." In any case, conditions of full equality between the sexes must hold in a Feminist Utopian society. Perhaps we can tentatively characterize a Feminist Dystopia, then, as a work that warns of the potential sexist and otherwise harmful consequences of Traditional or Feminist Utopian thought, and critiques a particular set of Traditional or Feminist social, political, and moral theories by depicting a future in which these theoretical assumptions ground the systemic oppression of one sex by the other. Judith ************************************************************************* Dr. Judith Ann Little Philosophy Department SUNY-Potsdam Potsdam, NY 13676-2294 littleja@potsdam.edu *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:56:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Wiscon: Was-Re: being new to the list In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > NH: I had an absolute zinging blast at WisCon 20 last year. (Nicola, > sorry I didn't get to meet you then, but I think I was on the opposite > program track from hell). If that one was anything to go by, I highly > recommend WisCon. The panels were interesting, I got to meet Ursula Le > Guin (and take part in a performance/reading of an excerpt of _Always > Coming Home_, which is a book of hers that I revere). I have a Toronto > friend who has avoided WisCon because he thinks he'd be out of place by > reason of his gender. Nope. Lots of people hanging around talking about > books. I was in heaven. > > -nalo Wiscon 20 was something of a special case last year. 20th anniversary and all that. Wiscon 21, which is being run by some friends of mine, will be a good bit smaller and somewhat more intimate. Still, there will be some fine authors. Melissa Scott is Guest of Honor. Other regulars include Joan Vinge, who lives in Madison, Eleanor Arnason, Pat Murphy, etc. etc. Most of the programing, although not all of it, will be feminist. The Tiptree Award ceremony will be absent as it was given out at the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts annual conference this year, but the annual Tiptree bakesale will occur. Anyone interested in finding out more about Wiscon, which occurs May 23-26, 1997 in Madison, WI, can get information at their web site www.sf3.org/wiscon/ or by writing to wiscon.concom@cs.wisc.edu or by phoning them at 608-233-8850 Mike ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:52:08 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Harman Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes I have been (up to now) silently following the thread on the Female Man and A Door into Ocean, which, just to put my biases out front, are two of the most powerful books I have ever read. I read them at completely different times in my life and that probably has a lot to do with how they affected me. I read FM when it first came out, delighted to be reading sf by a woman who was talking about the impossibility of being women in whatever world, as long the conflicting expectations of women remained in place. Door I read during the Gulf War at a time when I was, myself, trying to write and make art about violence and war. Perhaps these two books, more than others that have less complicated views of existence, are more "timely" and require a personal resonance in order to be fully appreciated. I tried several years ago to reread The Female Man and was unable to sustain the interest. While that was somewhat disappointing, it is not unusual to find that one has moved past (or, in the case of students, not yet arrived at) whatever place in life makes a book especially enjoyable, instructive or challenging. I think it is a mistake to expect that it is entirely within your control (and therefore your responsibility) to make sure each student in your class properly appreciates, is engaged by, or even likes, every book you introduce. And (the eternally optimistic teacher here), you never know what is sinking in and will surface later to produce change well beyond your immediate influence. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:55:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Dystopia, Utopia: Janet Dowling's Intro In-Reply-To: <19970416131719.15772.qmail@ns.potsdam.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Judith A. Little wrote: > For Janet: > From my syllabus-- (probably more than you want to know!) [snip] > What is a Feminist Utopia? Sally Miller Gearhart sets out four > characteristics of Feminist Utopian literature: it "a. contrasts the > present with an envisioned idealized society (separated from the present by > time or space); b. offers a comprehensive critique of present > values/conditions; c. sees men or male institutions as a major cause of > present social ills; and d. presents women not only as at least the equals > of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions." In > any case, conditions of full equality between the sexes must hold in a > Feminist Utopian society. Ack. I have problems with that definition. Certainly some feminist utopias see men as "the problem." However, any feminist utopia that includes men with the same biology as they currently have in percentages similar to the current day must not take that position. Why not a much simpler definition? How about: Presents an idealized society which has as an integral, necessary part gender roles that do not put men above women. Another possible requirement is that this society is presented as reasonable for beings "essentially" human. > Perhaps we can tentatively characterize a Feminist Dystopia, then, > as a work that warns of the potential sexist and otherwise harmful > consequences of Traditional or Feminist Utopian thought, and critiques a > particular set of Traditional or Feminist social, political, and moral > theories by depicting a future in which these theoretical assumptions > ground the systemic oppression of one sex by the other. > Judith The question is how to classify a thought-experiment like Tepper's _Gate_to_Women's_Country_ or David Brin's _Glory_Season_ that presents a utopian world and critiques it without putting it in the realm of a dystopia? After all, I would think that _Handmaid's_Tale_ might be a feminist dystopia, but neither of the above comes even close to being similar to that book. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:48:56 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Mala Ghoshal (NC)" Subject: Geek Love In-Reply-To: <970414173944_1055964043@emout10.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII _Geek Love_ is phenomenal! I strongly second Hope's recommendation of _Geek Love_ as a book to teach regarding family. Mala ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:46:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elizabeth Pandolfo Subject: Re: Deerskin (was Re: The Female Man) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I, too, would love to hear about your students' reactions. I found this to be a deeply disturbing, thought-provoking novel (I'm not familiar with the original folk tale). I agree it's more "psychologically sympathetic", and all the more disturbing because of how McKinley handles the attack scene. I felt caught up in the events and strangely distanced at the same time, and I think it powerfully (and clearly) shows how psychologically damaging such an event can be, much more so than other writing trying to graphically describe a victim's reactions. >On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > >NH: I've read it. Have always found the folk tale on which it's based >terrifying and fascinating. You're right; the book was ruthless and >powerful. Be interesting to know your students' reactions. >On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Martha Bartter wrote: >> >> Robin McKinley does a really powerful number on the "really attractive" >> attraction in _Deerskin_ which is our final novel in the fantasy class >> this semester. We have some students in the class with a feminist >> orientation (Women's Studies minor), and some with a very traditional >> outlook on fantasy. They are dissecting the "beauty myth" rather >> cogently from that book... >> >> Have any of you taught/read it? I find it very powerful (more so in a >> way than Russ, because it's more psychologically sympathetic), but >> absolutely ruthless. We're only just opening the conversation at this >> point in class, but I expect things will get even more exciting soon. -- Elizabeth L. Pandolfo/Briggs pandolfo@macbsd.com http://www.macbsd.com/~pandolfo/index.html "Whatever happens, believe that the journey is worth taking..." --Peth, "Seaward" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:26:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Whipple Subject: intro; Lathe; Sparrow; Tiptree MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello-- I subscribed yesterday, and I've just finished skimming the list archives, which is quite a task! (Laura: you might want to consider resetting the archives to log files on a weekly basis if possible; the file for April--2 weeks--was already 424 K) I'm a librarian at Swarthmore College (pay no attention to the Indiana email address behind the curtain; I'm really in Pennsylvania), and have been a feminist sf fan for about 15 years. I was first drawn into sf by either _Wizard of Earthsea_ or _Dragonsong_--going back to the discussion of artwork I read in the archives, both of these books had lovely paperpack covers. But I think the first sf book I ever read was _Wump World_ by Bill Peet when I was about 6. Anybody else know that one? Now about the film of _Lathe of Heaven_. (I didn't see this info when I skimmed the log files, but sorry if it was already posted.) Last year I called the video office at the PBS station which produced it (WNET). The archivist told me he gets about a call a week asking for this movie. Unfortunately, the language of the various contracts involved makes distribution basically impossible. For a slightly longer explanation, see http://www.oz.net/~jhawk/lathe.htm Finally, has anyone read _The Sparrow_ yet? It too escaped the NYT Book Review sf ghetto with its own "real" review, though actually I'm not entirely sure it felt like sf to me anyway. However, it does add more evidence to my sense that the Tiptree award winners make a wacky set of titles! (and I say that with great affection and admiration for the award) Taken individually each book and story is great. But it's quite difficult, I think, to really generalize anything about the works as a group. Of course, there's no reason we *should* be able to do that, except maybe as a way of thinking about the award. 1997: _The Sparrow_ by Mary Doria Russell "Mountain Ways" by Ursula Le Guin 1996: _Waking the Moon_ by Elizabeth Hand _The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein_ by Theodore Roszak 1995: _Larque on the Wing_ by Nancy Springer "The Matter of Seggri" by Ursula Le Guin 1994: _Ammonite_ by Nicola Griffith 1993: _China Mountain Zhang_ by Maureen F. McHugh 1992: _A Woman of the Iron People_ by Eleanor Arnason _White Queen_ by Gwyneth Jones Farrah and Mike mentioned the SFRA list. Could one of you (or anyone else who knows) post subscription info for it? Thanks. *************** Heather Whipple hwhipple@script.lib.indiana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:59:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: intro; Lathe; Sparrow; Tiptree In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Heather Whipple wrote: > > Finally, has anyone read _The Sparrow_ yet? It too escaped the NYT Book > Review sf ghetto with its own "real" review, though actually I'm not > entirely sure it felt like sf to me anyway. However, it does add more > evidence to my sense that the Tiptree award winners make a wacky set of > titles! (and I say that with great affection and admiration for the > award) Taken individually each book and story is great. But it's quite > difficult, I think, to really generalize anything about the works as a > group. Of course, there's no reason we *should* be able to do that, > except maybe as a way of thinking about the award. > > > Farrah and Mike mentioned the SFRA list. Could one of you (or anyone else > who knows) post subscription info for it? Thanks. > > *************** > Heather Whipple > hwhipple@script.lib.indiana.edu > I loved The Sparrow, despite a few dumb ideas (asteroid mining 20 years from now? Right). The characters were wonderful and the language too. One reason as to why the Tiptree winners have been so diverse (a good thing in my opinion) is that there is some disagreement over what the criteria are/should be for winning. Some people believe the story should essentially go for the best radical feminist story of the year. Others emphasize that the story has to be about "gender bending," ie. new ways of looking at gender. Still others simply argue for the best fantasy or sf story of the year which is clearly feminist or gender-related regardless of how radical its ideas are. When asked to rule on the actual criteria (or so I've been told by a former Tiptree jury member), the founding mothers (Pat Murphy and Karen Joy Fowler) tend to smile enigmatically and say nothing. As far as the SFRA list goes, unfortunately, in order to get on the SFRA list you have to be an SFRA (Science Fiction Research Association) member, a policy I disagree with (but I was out-voted). Membership costs $60 per year (going up to $80 next year). For this you get entry onto the list, subscriptions to 3 journals (Extrapolation, SF Studies, and SFRA Review), a membership directory, inside info on conferences, and (for slightly more money) discount subscriptions to Foundation and the NY Review of SF. If you're interested in membership, contact me off the list. Mike Levy levymm@uwec.edu levym@uwstout.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:20:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Judith A. Little" Subject: Utopia/Dystopia Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Joel VanLaven wrote: > Perhaps we can tentatively characterize a Feminist Dystopia, then, > as a work that warns of the potential sexist and otherwise harmful > consequences of Traditional or Feminist Utopian thought, and critiques a > particular set of Traditional or Feminist social, political, and moral > theories by depicting a future in which these theoretical assumptions > ground the systemic oppression of one sex by the other. > Judith The question is how to classify a thought-experiment like Tepper's _Gate_to_Women's_Country_ or David Brin's _Glory_Season_ that presents a utopian world and critiques it without putting it in the realm of a dystopia? After all, I would think that _Handmaid's_Tale_ might be a feminist dystopia, but neither of the above comes even close to being similar to that book. -- Joel VanLaven **** My (Judith) Reply: I haven't yet read Brin, but disagree that the society (actually three societies: Warrior's Garrison, Women's Country, Holyland) presented in Tepper's GTWC is a Utopia. The ultimate aim of the leaders of WC might be to create a utopia (world without oppression, violence, and war) but the institutional means they have designed to achieve that end are quite dystopic. One example-- Periodic killing of the warriors through concocted 'wars' with other garrisons counts, for me, as systemic oppression of one sex (male) by the other (female). The whole Garrison-WC set up, after all, was designed by the female founder of WC to test for and then eliminate aggressive males. This is not to say that Tepper views the work as a critique of Utopian non-violence. In fact, I'd argue that she presents WC machinations as 'necessary'; there's plenty of textual evidence for this. This controversy (Is GTWC a utopia or a dystopia) is part of what makes GTWC so very interesting, of course. ********* Joel VanLaven wrote: > What is a Feminist Utopia? Sally Miller Gearhart sets out four > characteristics of Feminist Utopian literature: it "a. contrasts the > present with an envisioned idealized society (separated from the present by > time or space); b. offers a comprehensive critique of present > values/conditions; c. sees men or male institutions as a major cause of > present social ills; and d. presents women not only as at least the equals > of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions." In > any case, conditions of full equality between the sexes must hold in a > Feminist Utopian society. Ack. I have problems with that definition. Certainly some feminist utopias see men as "the problem." However, any feminist utopia that includes men with the same biology as they currently have in percentages similar to the current day must not take that position. Why not a much simpler definition? How about: Presents an idealized society which has as an integral, necessary part gender roles that do not put men above women. Another possible requirement is that this society is presented as reasonable for beings "essentially" human. ****** My (Judith) Reply: I don't agree with either Booker's definition of 'Dystopia' or Gearhart's definition of 'Feminist Utopia', but haven't come up with anything much better. It does seem, however, that if not individual men or men as a group, then at least those "male institutions", which overtly or covertly inculcate and celebrate misogyny, ARE the major cause of sexual inequality. Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? Question: How should 'Feminist Utopia' and 'Feminist Dystopia' be defined? Judith ************************************************************************* Dr. Judith Ann Little Philosophy Department SUNY-Potsdam Potsdam, NY 13676-2294 littleja@potsdam.edu *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:26:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Utopia/Dystopia Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:20 AM 4/17/97 -0400, Joel VanLaven wrote: > The question is how to classify a thought-experiment like Tepper's >_Gate_to_Women's_Country_ or David Brin's _Glory_Season_ that presents a >utopian world and critiques it without putting it in the realm of a >dystopia? After all, I would think that _Handmaid's_Tale_ might be a >feminist dystopia, but neither of the above comes even close to being >similar to that book. > To me, utopias and dystopias are only *types* of writing, not genres in and of themselves, and they are types that represent certain extreme limits of the spectrum of sf. As described above, the 2 mentioned works are "simply" sf... ("simply," because we all know how hard it is to define the beast). Simplistically yours, Heather ;) hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:57:20 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Gordon Subject: Re: "Cocoon" In-Reply-To: <970414173726_-401870457@emout09.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cocoon is an excellent story, very intelligently written and politically thoughtful. The main character is a gay man, politically "moderate" who believes, in this near future world, as many do now that equality has by and large been acheived and homophobia happens in the past or to people who make too much trouble. He's an investigator, and picks up a case involving a terrorist attack destroying a laboratory working on discovering the biological cause of homosexuality (hate that word) by a corporate biotech co. Robin Gordon -------------------------------------- "I am the wall with the womanly swagger." Judy Grahn ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:17:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janet Dowling Subject: Re: Dystopia, Utopia: Janet Dowling's Intro Judith - thanks for the intro in to the world of utopias and dystopias. My dictionary didn't help me much- and I hate it when I get a block on a word and can not envisage what it means, or relate it to what I am reading (I still have horrors of the philosophy course whare I had to present a seminar paper on Hume's Dicotomy ((spelling? theres an H in there somewhere)) - and I just did not know what what a dicohtomy (?) was as my dictionary did not help - and its alright - I know now , even if I can't spell it) I'm looking forward to this list - definitely challenging Janet Dowling ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:56:43 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jason Griffin Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Michael Marc Levy > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes > Date: 15 April 1997 04:13 > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > > > On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:16:58 -0500 lissa bloomer wrote: > > > > > > a couple of years ago, one of my students (in my sci-fi class)(taught > > > during summer school) blurted out, "why can't we just read this stuff for > > > fun???!!!" > > > > > > i had to keep my cool, and restrain fantastical thoughts of a > > > mac10convertedsemiautomaticmachinegun. > > > > > > i wanted to ask this person why the hell was she in college? > > > > > > > > I am going to be very rude.....What appalling arrogance! Whilst I understand that > > critical analysis can be interesting and beneficial, most *good* fiction was written > > to be *fun* (using a very broad definition of that word) to read. One of the reasons I > > have little tolerance for much critical work in sf (I am a history lecturer) is the > > priviliging of boring but intellectually complex texts over fascinating and fun but not > > terribly well written ones. (This seriously skews sf syallabi away from any fan > > consensus of the *best*). I have heard English literature professors suggesting > > that critics should concetrate on the texts they do not like, rather than the one's that > > they do, and outside of sf, the most common assumption thrown at sf is that it > > cannot be good because it *is* fun. > > > > > > The starting point of all critical thought is usually either enjoyment or hostility. If we > > do not want to mistake cynicism for critical ability the more we stress the *fun* side > > of the material we read the better. I feel very strongly that the best entry into > > material is to enjoy it. Whilst I accept the latter part of lissa's argument that there > > are depths beyond fun worth plumbing, I still retain more sympathy for the student > > than for lissa. Reading should be fun. > > > > > > Farah. > > > I don't believe that Lissa ever said that reading shouldn't be fun, or > that fun wasn't important in reading, did she? Essentially, as I > interpreted her e-mail (not to put words in her mouth), she just said > that you should think about and understand what you read. For most educated > people this adds to the fun. > > I've been an academic most of my adult life and I've published hundreds > of articles, book reviews, and other pieces of non-fiction. With the > exception of a dozen or so reviews of books that I was assigned by various > editors, however, I don't think I've ever published anything about a book I > didn't like.(I take that back--I did once write a nasty piece about John > Norman). Writing, even academic writing, is not only time consuming but > involves an enormous emotional commitment to the texts you're working on. > Forcing yourself to devote hours to a book, story, or poem you dislike would > be sheer hell. > > In fact book reviewers are much more likely to write negatively about > texts than academics are. Most academic writing assumes the quality of > the text being discussed. If the scholar didn't think the story was good > s/he generally wouldn't have devoted any time to it. My assumption > concerning the academics who you mention as "privileging boring but > intellectually complex texts" is that you find those texts boring but that > the academics involved did not. I'm sure that the students in my SF and > gender class thought I was "privileging boring but intellectually > complex texts" when I assigned The Female Man and The Door into Ocean, > two books I love, when they'd rather have been reading easier stories. > > Whoever that professor was who you heard recommend to people that they > should write about works that they don't like, s/he was an idiot (on this > one topic, at least) and certainly doesn't represent the normal run of > academics, scholars, and critics. > > Mike Levy Hiya all. Well I gotta say I impressed with all the feedback on what I said about critcal reading although in not so fancy a string of words. My first answer is to say that I agree with most peoples arguments. Like the one about doing reviews on a subject that one does not like. To me if one likes SF and Fantasy then one is in a position to review a book in that genre but on the other hand if one likes more of a spy thriller stay away from the reviews for SF or fantasy. Also reading should be fun or atleast one should try to think that the book that one is going to write a review or an essay about is 'fun' because then the analysis is not biased and thought out. I am always or atleast always try to be positive because it makes things easier. My insurance lecture was fond of quotes and gave us one that went something like: If one tries something, one might be given the power to do it. That just says it all for me. I also agree that one should not just always read for pleasure, but when someone reads a SF or fantasy novel you can't always be critical of it, I mean then you are moaning about someone's imagination. That to me is ludicrous. A SF should be enjoyed and read into but not so deeply that you lose the story altogether in the observations Recently I read a review on David Eddings's books. It was quite clear that the person hated fantasy and didn't enjoy reading it. Immediately the person has wasted their time (how many people waste time on things they don't like unless they absolutely have to?) and energy, not only that putting a bad light on the review thereby spoiling it for others Jay "May the mother of all dragons keep you all from harm within the shelter of her wings" Melanie Rawn.... Dragonheart. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:02:14 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Williams Subject: non anti men Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Octavia Butler is my answer to Judith. Now who else can I read while I'm waiting for her new book to come out? And thanks Laura Q for this digest coming at me during my oh so non-fictional workday. kate > I don't agree with either Booker's definition of 'Dystopia' or >Gearhart's definition of 'Feminist Utopia', but haven't come up with >anything much better. It does seem, however, that if not individual men or >men as a group, then at least those "male institutions", which overtly or >covertly inculcate and celebrate misogyny, ARE the major cause of sexual >inequality. > Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that >don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? > Question: How should 'Feminist Utopia' and 'Feminist Dystopia' be >defined? > Judith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:51:59 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: non anti men In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970418130214.0072f2bc@uoft02.utoledo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Kate Williams wrote: > > Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that > >don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? NH: Reading very sketchily, as I am on a break at work, so forgive if my answer doesn't quite jibe with the discussion. Has anyone brought up Ursula Le Guin's _Always Coming Home_? Seems to me that it's a utopian work, with its exploration of societies based on using technology appropriate to one's needs as opposed to tech for tech's sake. Being Le Guin, it's feminist. And I don't think that it portrays men as the 'problem.' Warlike behaviour is problematized, but although men are the oppressors in the warmaking society portrayed in the novel, there are plenty of positive, human male examples in the agrarian society, and even one or two among the belligerents. And it felt to me as though the women were portrayed as human too; they made good and bad choices, had a range of personalities. I really love this book. -nalo > "Sleeping in shifts, or working in shifts, or if you were so tired you couldn't sleep you stared at the television and learned a new language. Whadya say. They learned this. Watched every show. After, feeling confident they'd gained something, a key to the day..." Dionne Brand, _Another Place, Not Here_ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:05:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: non anti men In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970418130214.0072f2bc@uoft02.utoledo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >>Question: does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that don't >>portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Kate Williams wrote: > Octavia Butler is my answer to Judith. Now who else can I read while I'm > waiting for her new book to come out? It seems to me that almost by definition it is the role of utopian and dystopian literature to react against the world as it currently is. Utopian works simply emphasize how things can get better, whereas dystopian works emphasize how things can get worse. Thus, since western civilization is largely a result of male-dominated institutions and since a significant percentage of the problems in western civilization are the result of male violence, it would be hard to imagine a feminist work that wasn't reacting against them. Butler is less explicitly anti-male (or anti-male institutions) than some feminist sf writers, but the critique of male institutions is still there. In Xenogenesis, Parable of the Sower, and most of Butler's other books violence usually comes from males, most often, though not always, white males. In Suzy McKee Charnas's Motherlines and The Furies women show themselves to be capable of violence too, but mostly due to their willingness to copy male methods. Perhaps the best (from a male perspective!) that can be hoped for is that the author of a feminist utopia or dystopia will portray some men as having overcome their conditioning and/or testosterone poisoning, as for example in Woman on the Edge of Time, The Female Man, and Gate to Women's Country, and Butler's books, all of which show a minority of men who are decent human beings. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:49:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Whipple Subject: feminist utopia/dystopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII How about Le Guin's _The Dispossessed_ as a utopia/dystopia that doesn't blame all problems on men? Although it's not a utopia/dystopia story, I want to mention Eleanor Arnason's _Ring of Swords_ in relation to this topic. It does offer another view (but not quite a critique) of gender roles/responsibilities, and there's a matter-of-fact-ness in the culture clash, expressed along the lines of "Why the hell would you want to set things up *that* way?!?" It implies an arbitrariness to "the way things are" that allows for thinking about change without assigning blame. this question also leads to (the larger than the scope of this listserv) questioning of what "feminist" means here. Does a feminist utopia/dystopia have to address gender? If it's about social equality or environmental disasters, and doesn't blame patriarchy or take place in an all-women culture, could it be feminist? Is _The Sparrow_ a feminist work? (these are all open-ended discussion-type questions as far as I'm concerned; I can think of arguments on several sides to this topic. they are not meant to be rhetorical questions) *************** Heather Whipple hwhipple@script.lib.indiana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:55:03 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Mala Ghoshal (NC)" Subject: belated thanks; aliens and Others In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970409233513.3a3f5d7c@kent.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII tanya--thanks for filling me in on the details of your tiptree thesis. nicola, thanks for posting your _parable_ review. and heather, thanks for sharing your findings about the different depictions of fear and monsters in SF by men and women. it makes a sort of intuitive sense that women might respond to monsters with identification, rather than fear, just because the position of the Other is a familiar one. mala ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:12:30 -0400 Reply-To: areuter@world.std.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Anne E. Reuter" Organization: iDirect Subject: "The problem" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that >don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? First of all, we should not confuse men with societal institutions. Certainly, western civilization is built on the concept of hierarchy and dominance - over humans, animals, and nature. Even the animal world has the pecking order - social animals arranged in a hierarchical grouping from the strongest to the weakest. Violence has always been used to keep the members at the bottom of the pecking order in line, just as violence is used by challengers to the old order. (This is as true of revolutionaries as young lions killing an old pride leader.) Although historically men have dominated all societal institutions - the church, politics, business, education - today western women are beginning to take their place in the corridors of power. One of the great debates in feminism and among women in the business world is "now that we have some power, should we follow old patterns (dominance, competition, etc.) or establish new ways of behaving and thinking?" One of the earliest points feminism in the 60's made was that no one should expect people to behave a certain way because of their gender -- society has always had strong dominant females as well as weak, fearful men. We are certainly socialized to behave in accordance to cultural expectations regarding gender, but many people -- particularly in an open, western society -- learn in time to become comfortable with the type of person they are, even if it doesn't line up with the ideal of 'manly men' or 'womanly women'. Institutions should always be criticized. Any society has its strengths and weaknesses. Criticizing the tragic shortcomings of a society or a culture should not be equated with criticizing members of the society who have come to terms with cultural expectations and have accepted or undermined the roles society created for them. That being said, men should not identify with societal institutions. The suggestion on the part of people oppressed by western civilization that our society has some limitations should not be equated with "male bashing". This term, like "political correctness" is a ploy to silence those who are oppressed by the system. It is only by questioning and challenging the received wisdom of 'how things have always been' that social change is possible. THose who benefit from the current system are, of course, reluctant to change the system so that others can benefit. I think almost any woman who reads will encounter novels and works of non fiction that are either abrasively or casually anti-female. No one seems to be bothered by these portrayals. But if a female writer creates a novel with strong women and men who are less than perfect (I think of Barbara Pym, who didn't write sci fi, but was a wonderfully feminist writer) then the questions of "male bashing" inevitably arise. What is really scary is that these objections can be raised by gatekeepers in the publishing industry - editors, managers, etc. -- and that can keep some writers from being published or force them to revise their works so they pass the hidden censorship of the gatekeepers. Women and men should always feel free in their personal lives and in their discourse to challenge the assumptions of our society or any other society, and have those hard questions listened to and regarded; not dismissed as "male bashing." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:44:26 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Andrea L. Klein" Subject: Re: The Female Man In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi all, It's interesting to read all these posts on The Female Man, because I think I had every one of the reactions described, each in turn. I think I understand Mike Levy's student who accused him of being hopelessly non-gen-x. I used to feel that feminism was directed to my Mom's generation, in hopes of changing "girls" to "women" in the eyes of both men and women. My generation, of course, no longer suffered from such outdated notions: I played sports, I fully intended a career, my male friends were never condescending, etc. In the last four years, college years, I've become aware of more subtle forms of sexism (just like racism as become less overt). For example, the practice of showing women atheletes as passive beauties or sex-objects, rather than in the powerful and active roles they play. I can still see, though, how women my age might claim that "they themselves have never been victimized by sexism and never will be." In many instances sexism today is less obvious, and therefore perhaps more insidious: a comment by an apparently egalitarian professor on a female student's appearance is hard to justify as sexism rather than something specific to the individual student. The Female Man made me angry at first. Why start fights so blatantly? Isn't there a more effective way to raise consciousnesses? Must she whine? Upon the second reading (I wondered why FM was so popular/talked about) I was mostly impressed by Russ's courage. How can one woman assault so many assumptions at once and expect to get away with it? How can she write a novel that is so obviously a polemic and call it fiction? Upon the third, and last for now, I was impressed by Russ's skill, creativity, wit, and elegant writing. All of these had been mostly obscured by my two earlier gut reactions. (kind of like an inability to enjoy a well-crafted, well-acted film because of some violent scenes...) Now, I can mostly put aside the earlier reactions and dwell in phrasings, in some very quotable notions, and some careful plotting of the J's interactions. However, Mr. Levy and other professors of the Female Man, I'm sorry to say that I doubt I would've reached stage three within the time frame of your class. I most likely would have left with the same frustration your students expressed, and the overwhelming notion that our poor gen x was being oppressed by baggage from previous eras! I do still think the last, but I would change oppressed to "oppressed and enlightened and colored by previous eras." Rarely can I watch my thoughts evolve so blatantly as they seemed to in response to the FM, which i daresay, was part of Russ's point. Andrea Klein ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 22:58:50 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Hope Cascio Subject: Responses to Non-Antimale Utopias and Gen X In a message dated 97-04-16 03:33:02 EDT, you write: << Yes, you're right, but tell this to a room full of female college students >who insist that they themselves have never been victimized by sexism and >never will be >> Women of my generation (the "X" one, like the Files) really do think this. They believe that sexism must always take the same drastic forms. They recognize Ayatollah Khomeini requiring chuddars (the long clothes that cover them up), they recognize arranged marriage, they even recognize Rosie the Riveter being asked to leave so Mr. Rosie can take his riveting job back. They don't realize that potential employers asking about your plans to have a family, construction workers leering at you when you wear a skirt, or the fact that they had a lot of Barbies and no Matchbox cars when they were kids is all sexism, too. It's too subtle for them to notice until someone points it out to them. And I'm willing to guess that the more blatan forms of sexism aren't obvious to women living in those cultures, either, until someone points it out to them. In a message dated 97-04-17 14:29:24 EDT, you write: << Question: Does anyone know of any feminist utopian works that don't portray men or male institutions as "the problem"? >> I took a Utopian Literature course in the English department at the University of South Florida. The course had an historical perspective, beginning with Plato's Republic, and including two feminist utopias, Herland and Ecotopia. I'd suggest either for an historical analysis of sf, but would heartily recommend Ecotopia as a feminist utopia that doesn't regard men or male institutions as the problem, unless you're being extraordinarily broad about male institutions, in which case, it wouldn't be feminist, would it? Hope Cascio ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:12:09 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:39:46 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > From: Michael Marc Levy > Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:39:46 -0500 > Subject: Re: The Female Man > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, farah mendlesohn wrote: > > > There is a Mike Levey also on the SFRA list -- are you the same one and am I about > > to embark on the same discussion on Heinlein with you on this list as I am on the > > other? > > > > All teh best > > > > Farah Mendlesohn. > > > Yep, I'm the same Mike Levy (only one e). I'm ubiquitous. If we start > having similar conversations on two different lists though this could > get very confusing, both for us and for the people who are only on one > of the two lists! Martha Bartter may be the only one who can figure out > what we're talking about!. > > Oddly enough, however, there is another Michael Levy who is active both on > the internet and in science fiction. He runs a Jack Vance homepage and people > keep getting us confused. > > Mike Great! I will try to keep conversations distinct. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:11:17 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:33:56 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Yes, the course was historically based. I used the Moon is a Harsh > Mistress intentionally because I wanted something to contrast with the > other, clearly feminist works we were using. I also discussed Heinlein's > odd, but very real "proto-feminism" (or whatever you want to call it). I > think that the bunch of students I was teaching would have hated "Houston > Houston" in part for the same reasons that they hated The Female Man. > They may have been initially impressed by the quality of Tiptree's > writing, but, due to the ending and an unwillingness to think too deeply > about what they read (a glancing reference here to another thread going on > elsewhere on this list!), they would probably have seen the story naively as > nothing more as an anti-male diatribe. > > Mike Heinlein isn't so much protofeminist as "first-wave" feminist (if you accept that the first wave of modern feminism is in the late nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries -- I know a number of historians who woudl start muttering about the seventeenth). Occassionally I think an anti-male diatribe is no bad thing. It might be worth teaching Houston, Houston, next to, say, Philip K. Dick's The Prepersons -- that might solve the "bias" accusations. I accept some of your arguments about boredom, academic study and depth, but it is my duty to encourage the reading to be fun. After students came in complaining about Delany's Time Considered as A Helix of Semi-Precious Stones this week I was very chuffed to have it turn out to be the most productive of the three short stories we were looking at (the other two were not sf) and students left muttering that they must read it again. This ties in with another point. I increasingly teach through short stories because I mainly teach middle-ability history students, who think well but read slowly. That way, I am less likely to bore them, and there are some wonderful short story writers in the field. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:18:02 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:55:38 -0400 sue hagedorn wrote: > What exactly did they object to in Door Into Ocean? I would love to teach > it, but I've had a bad experience before--I taught More Than Human, and the > students were universally thumbs down--I haven't yet figured out if it was > because it was too dated, not interesting to them, or if my presentation > fell flat. One way I now approach this is to start with the first sf I began with. After all, reading sf is a skill! I would no-more start with Delany that I would start a German class on Goethe. I am currently teaching a course on the American City using short stories from non-sf and sf anthologies (this produced interesting effects when one student pointed out that Delany's Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious stones read like film noir). We started with Edward Bellamy, Hugo Gernsback, Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg. We get to Russ, Delany, Gearhart and other "difficult" writers later in the course. Maybe you already do this? Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:22:53 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: critical reading and island breezes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:48:43 -0500 Michael Marc Levy wrote: > Based on class evaluations and comments during discussion, it [Door into Ocean] was too > complex and too slow, nothing much happened, passive resistance doesn't work > and isn't very believable, suicide is not an acceptable option, and they > couldn't connect with the viewpoint characters. > > Sigh. > > Mike Did you point out its connection to Quaker philosophy? It is interesting to compare it to her Still Falls on Foxfield, to LeGuin's The Eye of the Heron (or is it the Compass Rose, I am not sure) and to Judith Moffat's Penterra. There seems to be a tradition of non-violent resisatance lurking around sf. One of the most sucesful portrayals I know of is Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat Gets Drafted. I realise that this is sort of off the feminist topic, but *why* is violence both necessary and the cause of squeamishness? And do we as feminists have to discuss only "feminism" (whatever that is). Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:25:14 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: The Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:03:02 -0500 Martha Bartter wrote: > Robin McKinley does a really powerful number on the "really attractive" > attraction in _Deerskin_ which is our final novel in the fantasy class > this semester. We have some students in the class with a feminist > orientation (Women's Studies minor), and some with a very traditional > outlook on fantasy. They are dissecting the "beauty myth" rather > cogently from that book... > > Have any of you taught/read it? I find it very powerful (more so in a > way than Russ, because it's more psychologically sympathetic), but > absolutely ruthless. We're only just opening the conversation at this > point in class, but I expect things will get even more exciting soon. > > > Martha Bartter > Truman State University A very powerful novel> I won't ever get to teach it I suspect But I have recommended it to a number of people. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:42:19 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: being new to the list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII If we are talking about books with the potential to start a fight... have any of you read/taught Gerd Brantenberg's Daughters of Egalia. Me and my ex-tutor, now partner, have been disputing its merits for ten years now. Farah. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 13:53:34 BST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: farah mendlesohn Subject: Re: Utopia/Dystopia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII The Utopias conversation will go around in circles as long as we do not ask, Utopia for whom? For me, the only acceptable utopia so far, is Delany's Triton which allows for the construction of individual and group utopias in shared space. Farah > > Joel VanLaven wrote: > > Perhaps we can tentatively characterize a Feminist Dystopia, then, > > as a work that warns of the potential sexist and otherwise harmful > > consequences of Traditional or Feminist Utopian thought, and critiques a > > particular set of Traditional or Feminist social, political, and moral > > theories by depicting a future in which these theoretical assumptions > > ground the systemic oppression of one sex by the other. > > Judith > > The question is how to classify a thought-experiment like Tepper's > _Gate_to_Women's_Country_ or David Brin's _Glory_Season_ that presents a > utopian world and critiques it without putting it in the realm of a > dystopia? After all, I would think that _Handmaid's_Tale_ might be a > feminist dystopia, but neither of the above comes even close to being > similar to that book. > > -- Joel VanLaven > > **** My (Judith) Reply: > I haven't yet read Brin, but disagree that the society (actually > three societies: Warrior's Garrison, Women's Country, Holyland) presented > in Tepper's GTWC is a Utopia. The ultimate aim of the leaders of WC might > be to create a utopia (world without oppression, violence, and war) but the > institutional means they have designed to achieve that end are quite > dystopic. One example-- Periodic killing of the warriors through concocted > 'wars' with other garrisons counts, for me, as systemic oppression of one > sex (male) by the other (female). The whole Garrison-WC set up, after all, > was designed by the female founder of WC to test for and then eliminate > aggressive males. This is not to say that Tepper views the work as a > critique of Utopian non-violence. In fact, I'd argue that she presents WC > machinations as 'necessary'; there's plenty of textual evidence for this. > This controversy (Is GTWC a utopia or a dystopia) is part of what makes > GTWC so very interesting, of course. > ********* > > Joel VanLaven wrote: > > What is a Feminist Utopia? Sally Miller Gearhart sets out four > > characteristics of Feminist Utopian literature: it "a. contrasts the > > present with an envisioned idealized society (separated from the present by > > time or space); b. offers a comprehensive critique of present > > values/conditions; c. sees men or male institutions as a major cause of > > present social ills; and d. presents women not only as at least the equals > > of men but also as the sole arbiters of their reproductive functions." In > > any case, conditions of full equality between the sexes must hold in a > > Feminist Utopian society. > > Ack. I have problems with that definition. Certainly some feminist > utopias see men as "the problem." However, any feminist utopia that > includes men with the same biology as they currently have in percentages > similar to the current day must not take that position. Why not a much > simpler definition? How about: > > Presents an idealized society which