========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:04:00 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Tanya Wood wrote: > Regarding Helen Merrick's extremely interesting post, .... > I'm impressed by your project- the history of feminist science > fiction- and even more impressed that you are doing it in a department of > history. A bit different from the Tudors and the causes of the Mexican > revolution stuff that I did at university.Things must be hot in Australia! > > Tanya > I'm impressed by Helen too: she gave one of the best papers at the Liverpool University conference last year. But it is not only in Australia that one can do science fiction in a History department. The Reading University interdisciplinary MA in Science Fiction is run from the History Dept (by me); Farah Mendlesohn, also on this list, is in History, in York. And both of us have had science fiction dissertations done under our supervision. And, if it comes to that, some of the best sf scholars in the USA are historians: what about Bruce Franklin and Albert Berger? But don't get me on to the subject of why science fiction ought to be taken out of the hands of literary critics and back into those of cultural historians, or I shall be here all day! Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor: FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Joint Editor: EARLY MEDIEVAL EUROPE .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 07:40:25 -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: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > But don't get me on to the subject of why science fiction ought to be > taken out of the hands of literary critics and back into those of > cultural historians, or I shall be here all day! > > Edward James NH: Oh, do, please! I'd like to hear what you have to say. -nalo "Proud to be flesh." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 13:45:54 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: Anybody out there? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:06:57 -0400 Anastasia McPherson wrote: > > What are people > reading these days? I am a big fan of the anthology and am waiting for > the new Dozois Years Best to come out. I also just finished a new > anthology called starlight which had women well represented, however, the > quality of the selections was something less than memorable. Even > Maureen McHugh's story was an obvious derivative of LeGuin's "Left Hand > of Darkness". I like short stories too (and that's what my academic work is on) but it is a problem in sf to accuse writers of being derivative. Sf has been a discourse for seventy years. The genre has thrived on the willingness of authors to see their work embedded in that of authors. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 07:42:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elaine Kleiner Organization: Indiana State University Subject: Re: earth abides Hi! I'm an English professor at Indiana State U. in Terre Haute. I've taught SF now for 30 years. I thought I'd mention "Bears Discover Fire" by Terry Bisson as an interesting take on how earth's ecology might be affected by the start of a global warming. As far as "hard SF" is concerned, I always took the expression to mean that the work in question was, for the most part, consistent with the state of current knowledge in the hard sciences--chemistry, physics, cosmology, etc.--as opposed to the soft sciences of anthropology, psychology, etc. I never thought "hard SF" was the domain of men only. If a woman writes a work which is consistent with received knowledge from the hard sciences, she is practicing "hard sf." If, however, she writes a fiction which relies heavily on magic and the occult, she is writing science fantasy. So to me, the question really is: what women write hard SF and what women write science fantasy? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:00:33 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: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII A great post from Helen, but a small quibble. I don't think Heinlein *is* hard-sf. I think he has been claimed by the hard-sf-ers because he is such a god-like figure, but the texts for which he is best remembered: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Beyond This Horizon, Even Starship Troopers, are mainly concerned with the affect of certain technologies on social structures and it is the social structures on which he dwells most lavishly. Apart from the need for higher maths and the ability to use a slide rule (which he thought defined human intelligence) Heinlein is remarkably free of technobabble. farah. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:19:31 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: Hard science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > I don't think that there is a "pure" science anywhere, somehow independant > from ideology and humanity, as someone way back in the discussion > suggested. > > > Tanya. I didn't say that, I pointed out that scientists are human and subjective and that science has to be scrutinised in this light, but it doesn't invalidate physics. Farah ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:53:14 -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: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 14:00 5/1/97 BST, you wrote: >A great post from Helen, but a small quibble. I don't think Heinlein >*is* hard-sf. I think he has been claimed by the hard-sf-ers because >he is such a god-like figure, but the texts for which he is best >remembered: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Beyond This Horizon, >Even Starship Troopers, are mainly concerned with the affect of >certain technologies on social structures and it is the social >structures on which he dwells most lavishly. Apart from the need for >higher maths and the ability to use a slide rule (which he thought >defined human intelligence) Heinlein is remarkably free of >technobabble. > >farah. > "Technobabble" -- wow, what a pejorative term! We do need to remember that Heinlein more or less invented the space suit as currently used by NASA et al., and his "waldo" invention has not only been "borrowed" but even named as he did. (Like A.C. Clarke, whose invention of a geosynchronous satellite has been credited to him, but since he never patented it, only put it in a story, he didn't get any money for it. He also described "metal fatigue" before the airplanes really started falling out of the sky, if I remember correctly -- _Glide Path_ is even a pretty good book.) I thought the crowning insult was his suggestion that everyone have to solve a quadratic equation in the voting booth before it would allow anyone to vote...math does NOT equal political sense...but he does qualify under the 'tech' attitude. Look, e.g., at _Have Spacesuit, Will Travel_ where he insists that his young hero take "real" high school courses, rather than the cushy things the kid could graduate with. Now, much of that insistence disappears in the course of the adventure, but that's standard RAH. See, one of the big objections many of us have to his work is that he DOES invent interesting futures, but they rarely play much role in his actual stories. In virtually every one of the books, the story starts in a really interesting, well-described, well-thought-out future and then immediately takes off for somewhere else, while the hero(s) save the universe. The only one I can think of that doesn't do that is _If This Goes On_ where the theocracy RAH posits as starting fairly soon gets dismantled by a second Revolution. There the sociocultural side of the story does continue to figure. Well, some of that gets handled in _Stranger_ as well. Aside from those, most of his work, juvenile and adult, seems much more interested in the technical side of the problem-solving. Or the quasi-technical side. Look at _Sixth Column_, which has to run under the label of 'science-fantasy.' But it's very TECHNICAL science-fantasy, and kind of fun, too. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:45:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Gordon Subject: Why so many dystopias? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970501105445.330f2de0@academic.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think the tool of an sf dystopia is one of the most interesting ways to explore political issues in fiction. Particularly in the modern age where rapid change and an uncritical embrace of new technologies are a constant presence (in the first world). Dystopias allow the author to explore a new technology or political or social trend or change and say something intelligent about it by extrapolating possible future consequences. It's precisely because we, as a society, so seldom stop and exmine the consequences of adopting new technologies, processes and social conventions. A problem only enhanced by capitalisms needs to grow and change and develop new products to create constantly evolving consumer markets. Capitalism cares not for the consequences of its actions, nor do militarism and imperialism. Dystopias can serve as an exagerrated picture of our own world, and/or a clarion bell warning us of where we are headed. Warnings we desperate need. In addition to the books mentioned, I want to mention some of the classics of dystopian literature: Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, Orwell's 1984, and Huxley's Brave New World. Robin Gordon -------------------------------------- "I am the wall with the womanly swagger." Judy Grahn ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 11:56:31 -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: hard/soft science, technology & cyborgs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970501105445.330f2de0@academic.truman.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Heinlein got much less "hard sf" as he got older and his own engineering background got more and more out of date. Much of his early sf, particularly the short stories, was very tech oriented. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 16:26:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Karen A. Ketcham" Subject: Re: Like Water for Chocolate In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970430184756.37578fb2@academic.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hate to bring this up again, but I'm working on a major project and would like to ask for some ADVICE. what would be the best references (websites, books, articles, etc) that would lead me to find info on: how the success of this fantasy-realism novel has affected the HISPANIC FEMINIST literary movement? Your ADVICE and COMMENTS are greatly appreciated. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 12:35:13 -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: Science and Sexism I tried to wait a couple days before posting to let my blood pressure drop. I wonder how many list members have read about the Sokal affair? Alan Sokal, a physicist at NYU, decided to test his hunch that a leading academic journal of cultural studies would print complete nonsense, "if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." --Sokal in Lingua Franca May/June 96 So he wrote an article full of scientific howlers, postmodernist critical jargon, and progressive politics, with many quotes and much name-dropping (Derrida, Lacan, Irigiray), and concluding that modern science denies the idea of there being an "objective reality." The journal _Social Text_ then printed his article, and was shocked when Sokal then announced that the article had been a hoax. This created a furor, of course, with many notables trying to defend _Social Text_ and the field of cultural studies from the accusations of indifference to scientific merit, intellectual laziness, and obscurantism. One of the criticisms leveled against Sokal was that he should not have satirized the belief that there is no such thing as objective reality, "because no one in the field actually believes that." Well, it seems some people some people *do* believe that. (Slate, the webzine, has a good summary and links list about Sokal.) I would also point out that by surrendering objective reality to the patriarchy, you also give the "bad guys" sole rights to: R Truth Knowledge Science Technology Science Fiction. The territory you claim for feminism seems to consist of: Ignorance Superstition Religion Fantasy I leave it at that. As for hard science fiction: I think you have to try to write in the hard sf mode; novels do not become hard sf by accident any more than they become Gothic. For example, Nicola Griffith certainly seems to know enough about waste treatment to write a hard sf treatment of the subject, but IMHO she was going after something different in _Slow River_ -- maybe something bigger. She said something similar to this in the SFWA bulletin, about how when she added characters to her knowledge of biology, everything changed.. I don't see it as a criticism of _Slow River_ to say that it does not fit within the hard sf canon. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 20:16:50 -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: Science and Sexism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You know, y'all fly off the handle pretty quickly. My very first post on this subject was purposefully argued from a linguistic stance. If you'd like, we can just go more connotative: _hard_ science, versus _soft_ science. Now you tell me that choice of adjectives is not somehow significant. _object_ive reality. _subject_ive reality. You think these terms, as well, are non-connotative? One poses the world as a manipulated commodity; the other presents a more manipulative relationship to the world, but with several possible realms of focus (all subjects can have a different reality). I said *nothing* about ... what was it? >Ignorance >Superstition >Religion >Fantasy (interesting choice, however--one which i won't touch with a 8" or 10-ft pole...) being the sole domains of feminism, sf written by women, or any such balderdash. Once again: the original question was: is (the notion of) hard science inherently sexist. Yes, it is. Doesn't invalidate it, doesn't make its conclusions immediately wrong, doesn't obviate *my* objective or subjective reality. It's just inherently a sexist concept. Basta. >As for hard science fiction: > I think you have to try to write in the hard sf mode; novels do not >become hard sf by accident any more than they become Gothic. For example, >Nicola Griffith certainly seems to know enough about waste treatment to write >a hard sf treatment of the subject, but IMHO she was going after something >different in _Slow River_ -- maybe something bigger. She said something >similar to this in the SFWA bulletin, about how when she added characters to >her knowledge of biology, everything changed.. I don't see it as a criticism >of _Slow River_ to say that it does not fit within the hard sf canon. Gee, that's kind of you. Hard sf seems to me, if we work from Suvin's definition (which has the benefit of being concise, understandable, and not dependant on examples), that "hard sf" constitutes those works whose *novum* consists of something science/technologically-based. Remember, the novum is that "novelty factor" which is the crux of the story (szujet). Much (bad) hard sf from the Golden Age is remembered because the novum was so over-whelming that "characterization" seemed to be a mere add-on, something to make the work into an actual piece of fiction instead of a scientific disquisition. I'd have to reread Griffith's book, but as I remember, the closest technology gets to being the "raison d'etre" for the story is cyberpunkish, but it's not really hard because of the waste treatment plant. But I'm probably wrong--I really can't remember the details right now. But I don't think the mere presence of technology in a story--no matter how scientifically precise it is--is what makes an sf work hard or not. I'm reading Butler's _Xenogenesis_ trilogy right now (missed some of the earlier, more classic stuff not having grown up in an English-speaking country), and according to the above definition, this trilogy is definitely hard sf: the story could not have been possible without genetic manipulation. The fact that the thrust of the story is about difference, and human response to difference, does not change its categorization. Many of the "mars exploration" stories I've read, however, despite flame-tootling rocket et. al., are not "hard" in the slightest: they're just updated versions of western expansionism. Awright, awright. These discussions have been interesting, but jumping around like a bunch of mexican beans... Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 23:19:55 -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: Like Water for Chocolate Hi Karen, I too, am wondering about the Hispanic Feminist literature myself. I am Mexican American, raised from an outsider perspective, thus a lot of what I write stems from this perspective. The perspective of an outsider. My favorite book right now within this genre at the moment is La Llorna and other stories by Alma Villanueva I believe is her name I may be mistaken it has been a couple years since reading her work. If there are any particular threads of thought, or names you have received in your search, by all means pass them along, it would be much appreciated. Jo Ann Rangel :) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:44:03 -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: Science and Sexism In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970501203351.38ef5caa@kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 May 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > You know, y'all fly off the handle pretty quickly. My very first post on > this subject was purposefully argued from a linguistic stance. If you'd > like, we can just go more connotative: > _hard_ science, versus _soft_ science. Now you tell me that choice of > adjectives is not somehow significant. Well, obviously some people either missed that first message or did't understand what you seem to be saying (myself included). Sorry if we (I) misread your message(s). I don't disagree with you. > > _object_ive reality. > _subject_ive reality. You think these terms, as well, are non-connotative? > One poses the world as a manipulated commodity; the other presents a more > manipulative relationship to the world, but with several possible realms of > focus (all subjects can have a different reality). > > I said *nothing* about ... what was it? > >Ignorance > >Superstition > >Religion > >Fantasy > (interesting choice, however--one which i won't touch with a 8" or 10-ft > pole...) being the sole domains of feminism, sf written by women, or any > such balderdash. Once again: the original question was: is (the notion of) > hard science inherently sexist. Yes, it is. Doesn't invalidate it, doesn't > make its conclusions immediately wrong, doesn't obviate *my* objective or > subjective reality. It's just inherently a sexist concept. Basta. I disagree. First of all, I don't think you are describing your concept very well here. So, given the question: "Is the separation of science into "hard" and "soft" with the current definitions inherently sexist?" (I hope that this is your question.) I still answer no. I doubt that many here would argue with the idea that in our current society (read only in context, not inherently) that the differentiation of science is sexist and patriarchal. On the other hand, unless we define "hard" and "soft" as being directly related to sex, I think that we could very easily envision worlds (not that dissimilar from our own) where the distinction isn't sexist or is even sexist in the other way. Basta? What does that mean? As for "hard" vs. "soft" sf, I must say that while I don't like some of the definitions and words for them, I find some sort of distinction useful for myself. For instance, I found _Slow_River_ to be a very satisfying book. I do not think I would have enjoyed it nearly as much as I did if had not included the healthy dose of science (even fictional science) it had. On the other hand, I don't read sci-fi for the science. I think that in the realm of science fiction, we can make a distinction between those works that bind themselves closely to reality with a lot of science (even fictional) or perhaps, more appropriately, details and explanations about the scientific and/or technological underpinnings of the story, and those that are really quite mystical and make the reader take a lot of things "on faith" (or at least doesn't try to assuage their scientific skepticism). I will call them "sciency" and "mystical." I thought that _Slow_River_ was more sciency than the _Xenogenesis_ trilogy. I find that I have traditionally like sciency sf rather than mystical sf (though a balance is really what I need). Is this a failing of my ability to suspend disbelief? Is it a lack of imagination? Is it just personal preference? I don't know, but I find the distinction (which I have hesitantly called "hard" vs. "soft" sf until now) somewhat useful. [snip] --Joel ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:09:17 -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: Science and Sexism In-Reply-To: <11348188@tamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:35 5/1/97 -1000, you wrote: --snip-- > I would also point out that by surrendering objective reality to the >patriarchy, you also give the "bad guys" sole rights to: >R Truth >Knowledge >Science >Technology >Science Fiction. > Remember, as long as we don't allow 'real' reality -- and even physics doesn't any more, Sokal is only partly spoofing that -- "Truth" and "Knowledge" must still come in as 'true AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOW.' Reality likewise. > The territory you claim for feminism seems to consist of: >Ignorance >Superstition >Religion >Fantasy > >I leave it at that. > Instead of "ignorance" would you substitute "empirical judgment"? (See, e.g., _Women's Ways of Knowing_ which does NOT downplay the kind of knowledge and conclusions that women operate from!) "Science" simply refers to the operating system of current superstitions. It's always open to revision (or it isn't science), although this may come hard (see, e.g., the fuss about Einstein's theory of relativity in the 'teens and 'twenties of this century.) Perhaps a better way of speaking about that would refer to the contemporary mythology, which also encodes technology -- and that refers simply to "science worked out so we can use it" or else "things that work that science hasn't figured out yet" (like the steam engine, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). "Fantasy" -- GOOD fantasy -- explores psychological "reality" or psychological experience. Not a bad place for women, IMHO. (Men too often don't have the imagination to handle that well, or else they don't remember their own experience clearly enough. Some do, of course -- our excellent male fantasists.) Joanna Russ has discussed women's relationships to technology, and claims that women don't have the freedom either to "like" or to "reject" it, because it is not under their "control." However, a great deal of today's technology seems aimed at women (even if the designers don't realize it), because women make most of the money decisions now, at least in the U.S. Case in point: computers, "user friendly" and GUI -- when computers were really new, very few women used them. One spoke to a computer in machine language; even the most basic compilers were not available. But most MEN couldn't do this, either. So various computer "languages" have been written; if you can program your databse or spreadsheet, or rearrange the icons on your desktop, it's because more and more MEN couldn't work within the limited parameters of the old machine languages. Eventually, Apple came up with the Mac, Microsoft invented Windows, and then decided that users (read "women") couldn't handle that, so the put out something called BOB with their product. It is/was so simple (and so useless) that it's pretty well disappeared. WOMEN didn't want it. We know what something that "helpful" does to our hard disks. But this was a "technological fix" for those poor computer users who couldn't figure out how to open a file in Windows. (Meaning, women.) Think, if you will, about technology today. Heinlein had the right idea in _Door Into Summer_ -- women use most of the current technology, but it's not designed to make their life easier. He "invented" a device to wash windows, and to scrub bathtubs without leaning over. For once, a man really noticed what would make a woman's life easier. (And to my knowledge, no one has yet really put those useful devices on the market.) Let me catch my breath and lower MY bloodpressure. > >As for hard science fiction: > I think you have to try to write in the hard sf mode; novels do not >become hard sf by accident any more than they become Gothic. For example, >Nicola Griffith certainly seems to know enough about waste treatment to write >a hard sf treatment of the subject, but IMHO she was going after something >different in _Slow River_ -- maybe something bigger. She said something >similar to this in the SFWA bulletin, about how when she added characters to >her knowledge of biology, everything changed.. I don't see it as a criticism >of _Slow River_ to say that it does not fit within the hard sf canon. > I HOPE I'm not reading you correctly here. Are you saying that fiction with believable, true-to-life characters CAN'T be "hard SF"? The old, knee-jerk crticism of "hard SF" always included "cardboard characters" but I thought a whole lot of excellent writers had dumped that idea. And I also hope that relating any technology/science in the story to well-developed characterizations and believable social situations does not automatically exclude the work from any consideration as "hard SF." Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:39:17 -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: Science and Sexism In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been observing this stimulating discussion for some time and thought I'd contribute my own thoughts about objective/subjective reality and science fiction. I agree with Heather MacLean that "objective reality" has, in the past and somewhat even now, been decided upon by a majority of men in academia, politics, the sciences, the media, who were often little concerned with the realities of women. There has been an ongoing debate in the philosophy of history, for example, as to whether "objective reality" can exist in the study of history. Philosophy, similarly, is still grappling with the idea of social construction of reality (after all, all anyone has to go on as far as "reality" is what they can perceive, and no two people perceive alike). In college I took a course called Sociology of Intellectual Life, in which we learned how fraught with bias much scientific research is. One of the enduring lessons of college was that I really shouldn't believe anyone just because they are considered an expert by others. At the same time, there are many generally accepted "objective truths" which I regard, for practical purposes, as being True. My thinking is that if all the experience I and others have indicate that a particular statement is true, then it is. But I try to remain aware that the realities I've cobbled together could be radically challenged at any time. It's an approach I'd describe as "the golden mean" between objective and subjective world views. Not to say that I've achieved the golden mean, but I try to. Thus, objective vs. subjective for me is largely a matter of certainty. It seems that women are urged to distrust themselves and qualify themselves much more than men are, so it follows that they are less likely to believe that they are objective, or to be perceived by others as objective. So I believe there is a certain amount of sexism that women have to overcome to enter into the scientific discourse (which is largely concerned with "objective reality"), but the concept of objective reality is not inherently sexist to me. Perhaps a little too _rigid_ if relied on too much, but not sexist. As for the distinction between "hard sf" and "soft sf", I don't believe there is any reason to categorize science fiction as either. I, personally, have a hard time seeing what defines science fiction itself as a discreet body of literature, so I have an even harder time trying to decide what hard vs. soft might mean. So I'm in favor of scrapping the terminology entirely, especially considering the metaphorical resonances of "hard" and "soft", which ARE laden with sexist baggage. (I'm certain enough of that to say it's objective truth!) I hope this has all made sense. I've been composing this message on my lunch break next to a busy break room. I look forward to feedback. --Janice ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:14:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: Science and Sexism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" THE E-MAIL BELOW WAS SENT TO THE WRONG PERSON. THE MESSAGE ADDRESSES HEATHER BUT IT WAS SENT TO MADALYN. PLEASE RE-ROUTE. At 10:44 AM 5/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, 1 May 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > >> You know, y'all fly off the handle pretty quickly. My very first post on >> this subject was purposefully argued from a linguistic stance. If you'd >> like, we can just go more connotative: >> _hard_ science, versus _soft_ science. Now you tell me that choice of >> adjectives is not somehow significant. > > Well, obviously some people either missed that first message or did't >understand what you seem to be saying (myself included). Sorry if we (I) >misread your message(s). I don't disagree with you. > >> >> _object_ive reality. >> _subject_ive reality. You think these terms, as well, are non-connotative? >> One poses the world as a manipulated commodity; the other presents a more >> manipulative relationship to the world, but with several possible realms of >> focus (all subjects can have a different reality). >> >> I said *nothing* about ... what was it? >> >Ignorance >> >Superstition >> >Religion >> >Fantasy >> (interesting choice, however--one which i won't touch with a 8" or 10-ft >> pole...) being the sole domains of feminism, sf written by women, or any >> such balderdash. Once again: the original question was: is (the notion of) >> hard science inherently sexist. Yes, it is. Doesn't invalidate it, doesn't >> make its conclusions immediately wrong, doesn't obviate *my* objective or >> subjective reality. It's just inherently a sexist concept. Basta. > > I disagree. First of all, I don't think you are describing your concept >very well here. So, given the question: > "Is the separation of science into "hard" and "soft" with the current >definitions inherently sexist?" (I hope that this is your question.) > I still answer no. I doubt that many here would argue with the idea >that in our current society (read only in context, not inherently) that >the differentiation of science is sexist and patriarchal. On the other >hand, unless we define "hard" and "soft" as being directly related to sex, >I think that we could very easily envision worlds (not that dissimilar >from our own) where the distinction isn't sexist or is even sexist in the >other way. > Basta? What does that mean? > > As for "hard" vs. "soft" sf, I must say that while I don't like some of >the definitions and words for them, I find some sort of distinction useful >for myself. For instance, I found _Slow_River_ to be a very satisfying >book. I do not think I would have enjoyed it nearly as much as I did if >had not included the healthy dose of science (even fictional science) it >had. On the other hand, I don't read sci-fi for the science. I think >that in the realm of science fiction, we can make a distinction between >those works that bind themselves closely to reality with a lot of science >(even fictional) or perhaps, more appropriately, details and explanations >about the scientific and/or technological underpinnings of the story, and >those that are really quite mystical and make the reader take a lot of >things "on faith" (or at least doesn't try to assuage their scientific >skepticism). I will call them "sciency" and "mystical." I thought that >_Slow_River_ was more sciency than the _Xenogenesis_ trilogy. I find that >I have traditionally like sciency sf rather than mystical sf (though a >balance is really what I need). Is this a failing of my ability to >suspend disbelief? Is it a lack of imagination? Is it just personal >preference? I don't know, but I find the distinction (which I have >hesitantly called "hard" vs. "soft" sf until now) somewhat useful. > >[snip] > >--Joel > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:58:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Science and Sexism In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970502101204.348f7628@academic.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Martha Bartter wrote: >"Science" simply refers to the operating system of current >superstitions. No, it does not. > when >computers were really new, very few women used them. One spoke to >a computer in machine language; even the most basic compilers were >not available. But most MEN couldn't do this, either. So various >computer "languages" have been written; if you can program your >databse or spreadsheet, or rearrange the icons on your desktop, >it's because more and more MEN couldn't work within the limited >parameters of the old machine languages. Please improve your research. Begin with Commander Grace Hopper. Continue with the economics of computing and programming, and how they have changed as technology has changed. >called BOB with their product. It is/was so simple (and so useless) >that it's pretty well disappeared. WOMEN didn't want it. >But this was >a "technological fix" for those poor computer users who couldn't >figure out how to open a file in Windows. (Meaning, women.) These are unsubstantiated assertions. Do you have actual knowledge or evidence that Microsoft was considering women when developing and pushing these products? Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:21:43 -0400 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Science and Sexism In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970502101204.348f7628@academic.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 May 1997, Martha Bartter wrote: [snip] > Instead of "ignorance" would you substitute "empirical judgment"? > (See, e.g., _Women's Ways of Knowing_ which does NOT downplay the > kind of knowledge and conclusions that women operate from!) Whoaa there! Are you suggesting that women operate from fundamentally different kinds of knowledge and come to conclusions in fundamentally different ways than men? You seem to make men and women two separate species. These views that you seem to espouse (please correct me if I am wrong) I tend to caracterize as hetero-sexist. They are in fundamental conflict with the feminist ideals that I have embraced. So, rather than debate the philosophical here, let me contend with your version of reality and history as outlined below. Either I am significantly misunderstanding it or one (or both) of us has a warped view of reality and history. > "Science" simply refers to the operating system of current > superstitions. It's always open to revision (or it isn't science), > although this may come hard (see, e.g., the fuss about Einstein's > theory of relativity in the 'teens and 'twenties of this century.) > Perhaps a better way of speaking about that would refer to the > contemporary mythology, which also encodes technology -- and that > refers simply to "science worked out so we can use it" or else > "things that work that science hasn't figured out yet" (like the > steam engine, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). Science is special. It is not superstition. It is not superstition for precisely the reason you refer to (if it isn't open to revision it isn't science). That (and the insistance on testability) is exceedingly important. It is really and truely special. It is also why much psychology is not considered "true" science. Many psychological models simply aren't testable. (And even if they are, human thought it so complicated that there are so many other factors that it isn't even funny.) It does not however, satisfy all of our needs. Nor is it perfect (even by it's own standards). However, I think that those standards and ideals are vitaly important and special in all areas of human life. > "Fantasy" -- GOOD fantasy -- explores psychological "reality" or > psychological experience. Not a bad place for women, IMHO. (Men > too often don't have the imagination to handle that well, or else > they don't remember their own experience clearly enough. Some do, > of course -- our excellent male fantasists.) > Joanna Russ has discussed women's relationships to technology, and > claims that women don't have the freedom either to "like" or to > "reject" it, because it is not under their "control." However, a > great deal of today's technology seems aimed at women (even if the > designers don't realize it), because women make most of the money > decisions now, at least in the U.S. > Case in point: computers, "user friendly" and GUI -- when > computers were really new, very few women used them. One spoke to > a computer in machine language; even the most basic compilers were > not available. But most MEN couldn't do this, either. So various > computer "languages" have been written; if you can program your > databse or spreadsheet, or rearrange the icons on your desktop, > it's because more and more MEN couldn't work within the limited > parameters of the old machine languages. Eventually, Apple came up > with the Mac, Microsoft invented Windows, and then decided that > users (read "women") couldn't handle that, so the put out something > called BOB with their product. It is/was so simple (and so useless) > that it's pretty well disappeared. WOMEN didn't want it. We know > what something that "helpful" does to our hard disks. But this was > a "technological fix" for those poor computer users who couldn't > figure out how to open a file in Windows. (Meaning, women.) Think, if > you will, about technology today. Heinlein had the right idea in > _Door Into Summer_ -- women use most of the current technology, but > it's not designed to make their life easier. He "invented" a device > to wash windows, and to scrub bathtubs without leaning over. For > once, a man really noticed what would make a woman's life easier. > (And to my knowledge, no one has yet really put those useful devices > on the market.) I am reeling from (IMHO) whacked out version of computer history. Let me mention a few things: 1) The first computer programmer was a woman, as were the first computer operators, and many of the first computer designers. 2) Most HUMANS probably CAN "speak" with a computer in machine langauge. However, WHY. It is a pain in the butt for all HUMANS, men and women alike. No one wants to. In fact, jsut about ALL HUMANS have similar needs for ease of computer use. However, early computers (and computer sciences) weren't sophisticated enough to support such ease of use. 3) Tell me, do dishwashers, washing machines, and microwaves help make a women's life easier? (Even the sexist BS life you envision?) > Let me catch my breath and lower MY bloodpressure. Maybe it was your bloodpressure, but somehow you raised mine. Also, I aggree with waht you say from here on. [snip] > I HOPE I'm not reading you correctly here. Are you saying that fiction with > believable, true-to-life characters CAN'T be "hard SF"? > The old, knee-jerk crticism of "hard SF" always included "cardboard > characters" but I thought a whole lot of excellent writers had dumped that > idea. And I also hope that relating any technology/science in the story to > well-developed characterizations and believable social situations does not > automatically exclude the work from any consideration as "hard SF." > > > Martha Bartter > Truman State University Where/what is truman state university anyway? I must admit a lack of knowledge of state universities. --Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 22:11:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Hope Cascio Subject: Re: Like Water for Chocolate In a message dated 97-04-29 17:52:12 EDT, you write: << this isn't a comment so much as a request. I have been turned right off the *concept* of magic realism (not the literature itself), not because of the quality of the literature but because of the appalling standard of the three academic papers I have listened to on the topic. I would really appreciate it if any body could either explain to me what it is, or point me in the direction of a lucid article on the topic. >> Farah, I haven't read *any* academic papers on magical realism, which might be why I'm still enchanted by it. I didn't read Like Water for Chocolate, I saw the movie (go ahead and groan, I swear I'm getting around to it) but the short fiction and the one novel I can think of offhand (Allende's The House of the Spirits) that are magical realism *are* enchanting. Magical realism is just like a realistic novel, except that certain miraculous or magical things happen and are taken as no more than just slightly weird. It's a little like my personal view of really good sf: the idea is to find out how humans behave, how they're still human, even in unusual circumstances, like working in a lunar colony, or as a vr hacker. The emphasis is not on the magic/science, it's on the people. If Allende's novel were about the clairvoyance of the women, it would be boring. It's really about the family, and Allende uses the magic as a literary device. I hope that helped! Hope Cascio ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 22:11:12 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Hope Cascio Subject: Hard/soft sf In a message dated 97-05-01 08:59:40 EDT, you write: << If a woman writes a work which is consistent with received knowledge from the hard sciences, she is practicing "hard sf." If, however, she writes a fiction which relies heavily on magic and the occult, she is writing science fantasy. So to me, the question really is: what women write hard SF and what women write science fantasy? >> It goes beyond this division you're talking about, and I think, even beyond the division everyone else is talking about. You're splitting writers who use science and magic in their fiction, the others are splitting those who use "hard" science and those who use "soft" science. In my own mind, I split a lot of sf into that I like and that I don't like, and often this split occurs not over the hard/soft issue, or the science/magic issue, but the humanity/technology issue. There's no bigger waste of trees, in my opinion, than fiction that has flat characters and rich, three-dimensional technology. I read to learn about people, and this can be accomplished even in very "hard" sf, where the science aspect of the fiction is not upstaging the people aspect. I think Robin got it right on when she wrote: <> And also Martha: <> Hope Cascio, throwing in her $ .02 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:14:21 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lara Edge Subject: Re: Like Water for Chocolate Comments: To: Hcascio@AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <970502221103_-165075689@emout17.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To me magical realism celebrates what makes humans human (as Farah said earlier). I don't know what the academic papers you've read said, but just the fact that something *academic* was written about the subject is out of sync with the premise of magical realism, which emphasizes that undefinable quality that makes us human, yet connects us with nature. To sum it up, magical realism celebrates human nature and the human link to nature. Tradition tends to associate nature (i.e. Mother Nature, Wicca, etc.) with females, and therefore, magical realism usually has female "leads" as in Allende's "House of Spirits." Personally, I think magical realism speaks louder and more realistically about human conditions today, yesterday and tomorrow than any academic or scientific paper ever could. >In a message dated 97-04-29 17:52:12 EDT, you write: > ><< > this isn't a comment so much as a request. > > I have been turned right off the *concept* of magic realism (not the > literature itself), not because of the quality of the literature but > because of the appalling standard of the three academic papers I > have listened to on the topic. I would really appreciate it if any body > could either explain to me what it is, or point me in the direction of a > lucid article on the topic. >> > >Farah, >I haven't read *any* academic papers on magical realism, which might be why >I'm still enchanted by it. I didn't read Like Water for Chocolate, I saw the >movie (go ahead and groan, I swear I'm getting around to it) but the short >fiction and the one novel I can think of offhand (Allende's The House of the >Spirits) that are magical realism *are* enchanting. > >Magical realism is just like a realistic novel, except that certain >miraculous or magical things happen and are taken as no more than just >slightly weird. It's a little like my personal view of really good sf: the >idea is to find out how humans behave, how they're still human, even in >unusual circumstances, like working in a lunar colony, or as a vr hacker. The >emphasis is not on the magic/science, it's on the people. If Allende's novel >were about the clairvoyance of the women, it would be boring. It's really >about the family, and Allende uses the magic as a literary device. > >I hope that helped! > >Hope Cascio ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 10:20:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi-- I am new to this discussion...and, I am a novice reader in LeGuin's literature. I just read The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and I am embarrassed to say, I didn't understand anything!!! Can someone please help me? 1) why the boy in the cellar? --who is he? 2) why the festival? 3) what's the purpose of the boy w/the flute? 4) why is kid being mistreated? 5) who "can" visit and why do they visit? 6) why did some people leave Omelas? why did some stay? As you can see, I didn't get it... My problem in trying to understand the metaphors is that I am too literal (the result of my Catholic upbringing? --ha, ha). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 13:02:27 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Carol McBride Subject: Re: Like Water for Chocolate In-Reply-To: <970502221103_-165075689@emout17.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII re. Magic Realism... try Eduardo Galeano, Marquez, Borges, and almost any other major Latin American writer in the past 50 years for some insight into this misused term. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 14:17:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pandora's Box Subject: Re: what do students read? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:56 AM 4/25/97 -0400, you wrote: Hi Tanya, >Interesting post, Melissa! I too am interested in cyborgs- presumnably you >were looking at Donna Haraway's "Manifesto....."? She mentions a whole Actually I was a bit unclear. I had been reading Dale Spender's new book on Women & technology (construction of language and the impact of the net) and Donna Haraway's essay. They complimented one another really well -- oddly enough. And somehow I was able to tie Piercy's _He, She & It_ to both of them -- through the subject of obliterating dualisms. >opportunity- now I suspect it has narrowed somewhat. With cyber-rapes >and cyberstalkings, and cyborgs in the movies simply reinforcing "natural" >(uh!) sexual differences (Robocop and the Terminator being examples of >supposedly sexless machines being definitely "hard" and masculine), it >may be that this window of opportunity- that the dissolving of boundaries >between human/machine and hence other binaries like male/female- has >closed.I know Harraway shouldn't be treated too literally, as she was Interesting comments. I'm in the middle of writing/piecing together a short story about a very tech-grrrl. I'm keeping the stalking in mind, and even brought it up. It's such a difficult thing for non-internet people to grasp. I had this discussion after reading _(Learning About) Machine Sex_ (my fave short story in the Norton anthology of sci-fiction ed. by Le Guin) with my tutorial. Many were confused. They couldn't understand how virtual stalking can become just as scary/dangerous as "real" stalking. That is until most of them heard on the news about a fairly local case. A family moved into a new home, and a person called "Sommy" was using their telephone (with a voice disguiser) to listen in on other conversations (on the phone and in the house). This Sommy person continued for several months, turning off their heating and electricity. Lots of "experts" went in to investigate, only to leave completely confused. Eventually the family's son confessed to being Sommy. It left many people very aware of the dangers of being "cyber-stalked". I am reminded also of another case that I saw on the news before Xmas that took place in British Columbia. It involved their voice mail. Through their voice mail the stalker located their place of business, knew all their plans etc. They still haven't solved that one -- to my knowledge anyway. Talking about such cases helps, IMHO, people understand that they can't be naive when they log-on or use any other kind of technology. I think I am very optimistic. And believe that technology can still obliterate most dualisms -- especially the male/female one. An interesting paper, I think, would be to discuss how the internet eliminates/encourages that particular dualism. (Summer project perhaps? ) >not, alas, sexually revolutionary.Can anyone think of other female cyborgs >in the movies?Do things pan out any better??? I can't seem to think of any. Why is that? >PS the writer of The Terminal Experiment was Robert Sawyer- a Canadian- he An interesting side note about this text... It was on our class syllabus, yet we were not permitted to write on the novel during the final exam. Again, I was left with the question WHY? The text fit well in many of the questions he asked. Something to think about ... Especially I found the book to be very easy to read (bestseller-ish), and it was the *only* new book (post-1980) on the reading list. I thought he would use the text as an example of where sci-fi was heading. Anyway, that's a tad off topic. My apologies. I wanted to bring that up since so many of your are in academia, and to let you know that some students question *everything* (choice of texts, questions etc.). :-) Thanks for recommending more books (and to everyone who emailed me privately! My cyborg reading list has tripled!!) Take care, Mellissa ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 18:06:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: help identifying story Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Many years ago (sometime in the early 80s) I read a short story in an anthology. The premise was a near-future society (probably US) that had evolved into a continuously warlike state. Women were kept in convent-like schools, indoctrinated in nationalism and the necessity to breed more cannon-fodder. The protagonist was one young woman, going through this process. Does this ring any bells with anyone? I'd really love to identify this story for the feminist-sf web pages ... Laura M. Quilter / lauramd@uic.edu Electronic Services Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/ "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:19:29 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: magic realism In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 3 May 1997, Carol McBride wrote: > re. Magic Realism... try Eduardo Galeano, Marquez, Borges, and almost any > other major Latin American writer in the past 50 years for some insight > into this misused term. > NH: I also suggest Miguel Angel Asturias, Robert Antoni, Maryse Conde', Glenville Lovell, devorah major, Charles Johnson, Jewell Parker Rhodes, Gloria Naylor and Amos Tutuola, which will take you further afield than the Latin American writers. Tutuola cracked my thinking open when I was a young teen. He wrote in an African-English creole and devised creatures based on Yoruban belief systems. Me, I still get confused by the term 'magic realism,' although I understand intellectually what it means. When I think of the women whose work I've mentioned (largely because there seems to be something in common about the novels of theirs that I've read), there is a difference between what they write and what normally gets placed on the fantasy shelves in bookstores. "Magic" is different. All four novels are about women or families of women who have stronger than usual connections to the spirit world, but they don't exercise magic like a power to control events. Rather, they see themselves as part of a natural system which includes both seen and unseen worlds. They can occasionally influence those systems, but at personal cost and with variable accuracy, because, being part of the system, any change they make changes the system itself. I think I'd also add Canadian Shani Mootoo's novel _Cereus Blooms at Night_ to that list. Have just finished reading it, and would be very interested in hearing comments from anyone else who happens to read it. Am not convinced that it's magic realism, but I was rivetted by the way it explored sex roles, coming as it did from a Caribbean perspective (Mootoo is Trinidadian background). -nalo "Proud to be flesh." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:22:12 -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: help identifying story In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sounds to me like it might be a Connie Willis story, but I don't know the title. If it is, I think it's in a collection of her short stories. -nalo "Proud to be flesh." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:41:26 -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: help identifying story Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Laura: Could it be "The Funeral" by Kate Wilhalm, in _Again, Dangerous Visions_? If not, it might be interesting to compare the stories, since the premise sounds somewhat similar. 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: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:35:56 -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: magic realism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'd like to throw Jonathan Carroll's name into the hat for authors of magic realism, if only to point out that it is not exclusively a field for our Latin American authors. 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: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: <199705031520.KAA28731@shrike.depaul.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Madalyn Galdamez wrote: >Hi-- > >I am new to this discussion...and, I am a novice reader in LeGuin's >literature. I just read The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and I am >embarrassed to say, I didn't understand anything!!! Can someone please help me? My take on the story is that it's about humanity and compassion: Could you live a wonderful, perfect life, knowing it was at the expense of someone else's misery? A possible compare&contrast, IMO, is Harlan Ellison's _The Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World_. (if I'm recalling the right title) Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:50:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: what do students read? In-Reply-To: <199705031817.OAA16180@mustang.uwo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mellissa aka "Pandora's Box" wrote: > I think I am very optimistic. And believe that technology can still >obliterate most dualisms -- especially the male/female one. An interesting >paper, I think, would be to discuss how the internet eliminates/encourages >that particular dualism. In certain important ways, I think you are being too narrow. The proverb, "On the internet, no one can tell if you're a dog," covers a wider range of distinctions and discriminations than simple dualities or polarities. The combination of immensely wide access (with however many millions of people online), very narrow bandwidth, and complete control of exactly what is transmitted puts us in a new area in inferring from a communication. Neil Rest ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 21:14:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Hope Cascio Subject: Female cyborgs? In a message dated 97-05-03 14:21:48 EDT, you write: << >not, alas, sexually revolutionary.Can anyone think of other female cyborgs >in the movies?Do things pan out any better??? I can't seem to think of any. Why is that? >> I can think of one: Ghost in the Machine, a Japanese anime film. Main character is a female cyborg who's an assassin. Very male-identified character, it seemed. Hope ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:17:13 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: Middleton/ecology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Beth, being a plant ecologist you should, if you haven't, read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red, Green and Blue Mars) recently published where terraformation plays a big part with vivid descriptions of how biomes and biotopes are created from the simplest to the most complicated ones. And I would be very interested if you would share your professional comments on his plot from an ecological and biological perspective. Being an art historian I don't know enough to say whether its gibberish or a plausible development, but am interested in finding out. Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Research Assistant Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:00:52 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lawton/Miller Subject: Slonczewski Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can anyone tell me if Joan Slonczewski's _Daughter of Elysium_ is part of a series? I have the book, but don't want to start in the middle of a series. TIA, Lee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The universe is made of stories, not of atoms. Muriel Rukeyser ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 20:22:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Neil: Thanks for your insight. Madalyn At 01:38 PM 5/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >Madalyn Galdamez wrote: >>Hi-- >> >>I am new to this discussion...and, I am a novice reader in LeGuin's >>literature. I just read The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and I am >>embarrassed to say, I didn't understand anything!!! Can someone please >help me? > >My take on the story is that it's about humanity and compassion: Could you >live a wonderful, perfect life, knowing it was at the expense of someone >else's misery? A possible compare&contrast, IMO, is Harlan Ellison's _The >Beast That Shouted Love at the Heart of the World_. (if I'm recalling the >right title) > > >Neil Rest > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 22:15:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elaine Kleiner Organization: Indiana State University Subject: Re: Science and Sexism Good idea to bring Suvin into this discussion of "hard-science fiction." Speaking narratologically, hard-science fiction is well described as SF employing a novum drawn from the hard sciences--ie. physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 23:15:53 -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: Slonczewski In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 5 May 1997, Lawton/Miller wrote: > Can anyone tell me if Joan Slonczewski's _Daughter of Elysium_ is part of a > series? I have the book, but don't want to start in the middle of a series. > > TIA, > > Lee Daughter of Elysium is the second book in the series. It stands fine on it's own, but it would be a good idea to read A Door into Ocean first. A third book will appear eventually, but Slonczewski is a very slow writer, in part because she's a university professor, internationally known biologist, and Quaker activist. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 09:05:30 -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: Science and Sexism I said (among other things) - The territory you claim for feminism seems to consist of: -Ignorance -Superstition -Religion -Fantasy Looking back, I realize this sounds like I am slandering fantasy -- what I meant to say was that theoretically, one could write fantasy without any basis in reality, but you could not really write sf that way. (Of course, in practice good fantasy writers seem to know a lot about horses, and cities, and geography, while bad science fiction writers often get their material directly from bad science fiction...) Regarding women and hard sf: the name Linda Nagata came up recently. I just finished her first novel, _The Bohr Maker_. The Maker of the title is a nanotech gimmick that gives its posessor the power to read minds, heal the sick, change their bodily form, and what have you. When a dying genetically altered human tries to steal it to cure himself, the Maker ends up infecting an impoverished prostitute and giving her the powers of a god. And the chase is on, through an elaborate and colorful future world. I enjoyed it, but I don't think it's hard sf. The Bohr Maker seemed too much like a miracle and not at all like a machine. I had the same feeling with this book that I did with Kathleen Ann Goonan's _Queen City Jazz_, that nanotechnology was being used as a convenient explanation of what would otherwise be full-blown science fantasy. I'm sure someone out there will say that future tech will *be* a miracle, and that these stories are therefore more realistic than more conservative treatments of nanotech; that may be so, but they are still not hard sf. I'd love to hear what other readers of these two books might think. Daniel Krashin "Call the Navy, there's a Sub in my subjectivity!" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 10:18:17 -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: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970505133821.00694bdc@tezcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII While I'm ashamed to say I've never read The Ones Who Walk Away, from descriptions I've heard many times over, it sounds very similar to a wonderful short film I saw way back in high school, called The Lottery. The premise was an idyllic (utopian) town, and once a year the citizens took part in a lottery, by which one person was selected and then stoned by the other citizens. The theme of the film was the way in which the brutal violence of the lottery was an outlet for agression and violence and injustice, without which the town's utopian life would not be possible. Which reminds me of the war games in Ecotopia. The author seems to posit a certain essential violence to humankind, predominantly but not exclusively men. The men, and some few women, need to use the violent and often deadly wargames to purge their violent/aggressive urges so that the peace and non-violence of the community can continue. As with most essentialist views of human nature I reject this philosophy. Robin Gordon -------------------------------------- "I am the wall with the womanly swagger." Judy Grahn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:16:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Middleton Subject: Re: Middleton/ecology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Britt-Inger This trilogy is being passed around my plant ecology lab now by one of my grad students. So much of the terraforming actually is engineering and physics that I don't know if I could judge it. Much of the science is dependent on the nature of Mars, and that isn't something I'm familiar with. The ecology/plant science info is believable though. Also, the pioneer scientists seem to fit the psychological profile. Overall, I find the reading a little slow, but there is a neat feminist twist at the end with the women creating an alternate settlement. Beth At 07:17 PM 5/4/97 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Beth, > >being a plant ecologist you should, if you haven't, read Kim Stanley >Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red, Green and Blue Mars) recently published where >terraformation plays a big part with vivid descriptions of how biomes and >biotopes are created from the simplest to the most complicated ones. And I >would be very interested if you would share your professional comments on >his plot from an ecological and biological perspective. Being an art >historian I don't know enough to say whether its gibberish or a plausible >development, but am interested in finding out. > >Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se >Research Assistant >Dept. of Art History >Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 >752 37 Uppsala >Uppsala University > > Dr. Beth Middleton Department of Plant Biology, 411 Life Science II Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 618-453-3216 FAX: 618-453-3441 Sabbatical Phone and FAX: 618-457-6760 bmiddleton@plant.siu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:44:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Robin: It reminded me of The Lottery also, but still, I get the feeling that it is only women who are being tortured. Madalyn At 10:18 AM 5/6/97 -0400, you wrote: >While I'm ashamed to say I've never read The Ones Who Walk Away, from >descriptions I've heard many times over, it sounds very similar to a >wonderful short film I saw way back in high school, called The Lottery. >The premise was an idyllic (utopian) town, and once a year the citizens >took part in a lottery, by which one person was selected and then stoned >by the other citizens. The theme of the film was the way in which the >brutal violence of the lottery was an outlet for agression and violence >and injustice, without which the town's utopian life would not be >possible. > >Which reminds me of the war games in Ecotopia. The author seems to posit >a certain essential violence to humankind, predominantly but not >exclusively men. The men, and some few women, need to use the violent and >often deadly wargames to purge their violent/aggressive urges so that the >peace and non-violence of the community can continue. As with most >essentialist views of human nature I reject this philosophy. > >Robin Gordon > >-------------------------------------- >"I am the wall with the womanly swagger." >Judy Grahn > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:19:12 -0700 Reply-To: byerwood@ix.netcom.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: K Wood/C Byers Organization: Byerwood Productions Subject: 'bye for now MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, all. Due to time constraints in the rest of my life, I am going to need to sign off this most excellent list. I've found the discussions interesting, and realize that if I am going to do more than lurk, I'll need to put more time into list discussion than I have to spend. Oh, well. Take care, all of you. It's good to know the list exists, and perhaps in the future I'll be in a position to sign back on. Oh, list mom, I'll unsubscribe myself, you don't need to do anything. If I have trouble, I'll shout for help. :) Candace -- Byerwood Productions ArtWorks & Literary Kathy Wood/Candace Byers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:38:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Re: Slonczewski Comments: To: Lawton/Miller Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Can anyone tell me if Joan Slonczewski's _Daughter of Elysium_ is part of >a series? I have the book, but don't want to start in the middle of a >series. >TIA, >Lee God, I hope not. It was a pretty weak book. I was very disappointed and i really enjoyed her previous two books. The book didn't seem to know where it was going, what was important, and the names kept getting me confused. Could authors please, if you are going to use wild, very similar names for your aliens, please include a cast of characters list somewhere in the book? Chuck Munson-"shoen" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 17:39:19 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: Middleton/ecology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thank you for your swift response Beth. I agree that Robinson's Mars trilogy has a sort of Dickensian ackumulation of facts, people, intrigues which sometimes makes the reader slightly impatient. But I can't help being fascinated by the story none the less with it's continued shift of focus between a macro and a micro level, between the personal and the larger social field and the interaction. I enjoy it's diversity as it addresses so many different topics, philosophical, ethical, political, genderoriented etc, which gives much food for thought. I'm currently reading the final "installment", valiantly resisting the temptation to find out how it ends. There is one hitch though, which makes me uncomfortable with it. I don't know if it's just my way of reading it, but it does seem to me that almost all the strong, purposeful women in it are described in a fairly a negative way as unpleasant and self destructive in one way or another as if it would be a *natural* result from their active personalities. Hiroko, Ann, Maya, Jackie are uppermost in my mind, only Nadia is unreservedly portrayed in a sympathetic way but then she also rejects power in the end to settle and have a child instead. They are also strongly tied to sexuality/nature, where as the men seem more conncted with intellect/civilisation. When Maya and Jackie are politicking they're portrayed very much as intriguers using their *promiscuity* for ulterior ends, but when Art and Nirgal are politicking it is referred to in very positive, idealistic terms. Men playing out women against each other in the way Jackie and Maya do with the men just don't exist. The male counterparts (John Boone, Nirgal, Art, Sax, Michel etc) are on the whole much more positively and sympathetically depicted, sometimes often as not victims of the women intriguers. The only truly unpleasant man is Frank Chalmers and some the UNTA representatives. To me this definitely sours the *feminist twists* that it has been sprinkled with, like Hiroko's community and the Dorsa Brevian women, and sheds a doubt on them being anything more than just populistic attempts to adapt to current trends. In short I believe I see a strange ambivalence. Any thoughts about this out there? Britt-Inger >Dear Britt-Inger > >This trilogy is being passed around my plant ecology lab now by one of my >grad students. So much of the terraforming actually is engineering and >physics that I don't know if I could judge it. Much of the science is >dependent on the nature of Mars, and that isn't something I'm familiar with. >The ecology/plant science info is believable though. Also, the pioneer >scientists seem to fit the psychological profile. Overall, I find the >reading a little slow, but there is a neat feminist twist at the end with >the women creating an alternate settlement. > >Beth > > > >At 07:17 PM 5/4/97 +0100, you wrote: >>Hi Beth, >> >>being a plant ecologist you should, if you haven't, read Kim Stanley >>Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red, Green and Blue Mars) recently published where >>terraformation plays a big part with vivid descriptions of how biomes and >>biotopes are created from the simplest to the most complicated ones. And I >>would be very interested if you would share your professional comments on >>his plot from an ecological and biological perspective. Being an art >>historian I don't know enough to say whether its gibberish or a plausible >>development, but am interested in finding out. >> >>Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se >>Research Assistant >>Dept. of Art History >>Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 >>752 37 Uppsala >>Uppsala University >> >> >Dr. Beth Middleton >Department of Plant Biology, 411 Life Science II >Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 >618-453-3216 FAX: 618-453-3441 >Sabbatical Phone and FAX: 618-457-6760 >bmiddleton@plant.siu.edu Britt-Inger.Johansson@konstvet.uu.se Research Assistant Dept. of Art History Uppsala slott, Soedra tornet H:0 752 37 Uppsala Uppsala University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 11:51:51 -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: Slonczewski In-Reply-To: <00055549.1205@aaas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 6 May 1997, CMUNSON wrote: > > Could authors please, if you are going to use wild, very similar names for your > aliens, please include a cast of characters list somewhere in the book? NH: :) Point well taken, as I found out when trying to read from a piece of mine in which the three main characters have similar names. -nalo "Proud to be flesh." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 10:30:10 -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 Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 6 May 1997, Robin Gordon wrote: > While I'm ashamed to say I've never read The Ones Who Walk Away, from > descriptions I've heard many times over, it sounds very similar to a > wonderful short film I saw way back in high school, called The Lottery. > The premise was an idyllic (utopian) town, and once a year the citizens > took part in a lottery, by which one person was selected and then stoned > by the other citizens. The theme of the film was the way in which the > brutal violence of the lottery was an outlet for agression and violence > and injustice, without which the town's utopian life would not be > possible. > > Robin Gordon > "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" and "The Lottery" (which was a great story by Shirley Jackson before it was turned into a pretty good film) are similar in that they book involve the concept of scapegoating, the idea that by heaping suffering on one person, we therefore magically evade it ourselves or, more realistically, at least avoid having to feel guilty. Scapegoating is something human beings do all the time. Jesus was a scapegoat. So were the Jews in WWII. So are so-called Welfare Queens today. "Omelas" is a parable and should not be read as a realistic story. Le Guin is playing around with the old idea about "the greatest good for the greatest number" and taking it to its logical extreme. What if, magically, all the evil in the world could be heaped on one person and everyone else could be happy. Would it be worthwhile or would the injustice done to that one probably retarded child outway the good of all the rest. The ones who "walk away" are buying out of the system, refusing to accept their own happiness if it comes at the expense of someone else. On one level the story can be read as a parable about the western world living off the suffering of the third world. On another level it can be read as a parable about our society's refusal to accept the legitimacy of the plight of the poor. Several writers have commented on the ironic fact that, while the people walk away from Omelas, and refuse to benefit from the child's suffering, they make no apparent effort to help the child. In effect, they opt out of the system, but don't try to fix it. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:24:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mike: I get a better picture now...thanks. Madalyn At 10:30 AM 5/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, 6 May 1997, Robin Gordon wrote: > >> While I'm ashamed to say I've never read The Ones Who Walk Away, from >> descriptions I've heard many times over, it sounds very similar to a >> wonderful short film I saw way back in high school, called The Lottery. >> The premise was an idyllic (utopian) town, and once a year the citizens >> took part in a lottery, by which one person was selected and then stoned >> by the other citizens. The theme of the film was the way in which the >> brutal violence of the lottery was an outlet for agression and violence >> and injustice, without which the town's utopian life would not be >> possible. >> >> Robin Gordon >> >"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" and "The Lottery" (which was a great >story by Shirley Jackson before it was turned into a pretty good film) >are similar in that they book involve the concept of scapegoating, the >idea that by heaping suffering on one person, we therefore magically >evade it ourselves or, more realistically, at least avoid having to feel >guilty. Scapegoating is something human beings do all the time. Jesus was >a scapegoat. So were the Jews in WWII. So are so-called Welfare Queens today. > >"Omelas" is a parable and should not be read as a realistic story. Le >Guin is playing around with the old idea about "the greatest good for the >greatest number" and taking it to its logical extreme. What if, >magically, all the evil in the world could be heaped on one person and >everyone else could be happy. Would it be worthwhile or would the >injustice done to that one probably retarded child outway the good of all >the rest. The ones who "walk away" are buying out of the system, >refusing to accept their own happiness if it comes at the expense of >someone else. On one level the story can be read as a parable about the >western world living off the suffering of the third world. On another >level it can be read as a parable about our society's refusal to accept >the legitimacy of the plight of the poor. > >Several writers have commented on the ironic fact that, while the people >walk away from Omelas, and refuse to benefit from the child's suffering, >they make no apparent effort to help the child. In effect, they opt out >of the system, but don't try to fix it. > >Mike Levy > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:13:10 -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 Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Some critic, I've forgotten who, said that this story should really be called, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelettes" -- those breakfast treats you cannot make without breaking a few eggs... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:27:04 -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 Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Le Guin's story stems (she says) from Henry(?) James -- a philosophical question: could one be happy in a world that provided every perfection one could wish IF it depended on one person living in absolute misery. That's a child in the basement -- girl or boy makes no difference. The difference Le Guin posits is important: everyone in Omelas KNOWS about the child. (We create a culture with lots and lots of people living in misery, but we are very very careful not to 'see' them.) In Omelas, everything is perfect (even the narrative voice that reminds us how perfect it is -- you want orgies? OK, you can have orgies, but they'll be nice ones). And, sometimes, someone walks away. They don't know what they're walking TO, but they know very well what they're walking away FROM. I don't think it resembles Jackson's Lottery all that much. No one questions the lottery except the woman who gets stoned. Even her kids cooperate. (And we see that she's a nice average housewife type who cleaned up the kitchen before she came to her death.) And no one knows why they have the lottery; it's a custom, that's all, and there's a saying that if they don't have it they won't have a good year. That kind of residual superstition does occur, in many forms, but it's usually subconscious. Le Guin does not allow that comfortable out. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 14:53:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Michael Marc Levy replied: >"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" and "The Lottery" (which was a great >story by Shirley Jackson before it was turned into a pretty good film) >are similar in that they book involve the concept of scapegoating, the >idea that by heaping suffering on one person, we therefore magically >evade it ourselves or, more realistically, at least avoid having to feel >guilty. Scapegoating is something human beings do all the time. Jesus was >a scapegoat. So were the Jews in WWII. So are so-called Welfare Queens today. I'm afraid I have several small, vital differences. In the original meaning, a "scapegoat" explicitly bears the sins of all. As best I recall "Omelas" and The Lottery", neither was explicitly scapegoating. And Jesus is something of a scapegoat in the Christian tradition; there are several other cultural and historic angles(!). >"Omelas" is a parable and should not be read as a realistic story. Le >Guin is playing around with the old idea about "the greatest good for the >greatest number" and taking it to its logical extreme. What if, >magically, all the evil in the world could be heaped on one person and >everyone else could be happy. Would it be worthwhile or would the >injustice done to that one probably retarded child outway the good of all >the rest. The ones who "walk away" are buying out of the system, >refusing to accept their own happiness if it comes at the expense of >someone else. (Almost Precisely my understanding.) >On one level the story can be read as a parable about the >western world living off the suffering of the third world. On another >level it can be read as a parable about our society's refusal to accept >the legitimacy of the plight of the poor. This suggests an overdose of English classes. I don't recall specifics in the story to support either einterpretation. >Several writers have commented on the ironic fact that, while the people >walk away from Omelas, and refuse to benefit from the child's suffering, >they make no apparent effort to help the child. In effect, they opt out >of the system, but don't try to fix it. Perhaps beside the point. It just isn't that large a story. (in wordcount only!) thanks, Neil ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:04:34 -0700 Reply-To: ltimmel@halcyon.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "L. Timmel Duchamp" Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martha Bartter wrote: > > Le Guin's story stems (she says) from Henry(?) James -- > a philosophical question: could one be happy in a world > that provided every perfection one could wish IF it > depended on one person living in absolute misery. > Jane Austen tried to write a story asking this same question rhetorically ("Evelyn," to be found among her juvenalia in the Oxford volume of her "minor works"). Like most of her juvenalia, it's hyperbolically satirical; but the interesting thing about it is that it has a fantasy element in it that, had she not backed away from, might have allowed her to finish the piece (though more trenchantly than she might have wished). Instead of imagining an entire society benefitting from the designation of a suffering scapegoat, though, Austen has a single individual benefit from the sacrifices of an entire village. Timmi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 15:06:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Daniel: Thanks for that twist...Madalyn At 09:13 AM 5/6/97 -1000, you wrote: >Some critic, I've forgotten who, said that this story should really be >called, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelettes" -- those breakfast treats you >cannot make without breaking a few eggs... > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 15:05:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Martha: Thanks a million for your reponse. I am new at this type of reading. With more practice, soon--I hope--I will be able to pay back the "favor." Madalyn At 02:27 PM 5/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >Le Guin's story stems (she says) from Henry(?) James -- >a philosophical question: could one be happy in a world >that provided every perfection one could wish IF it >depended on one person living in absolute misery. > >That's a child in the basement -- girl or boy makes no >difference. The difference Le Guin posits is important: >everyone in Omelas KNOWS about the child. (We create a >culture with lots and lots of people living in misery, >but we are very very careful not to 'see' them.) > >In Omelas, everything is perfect (even the narrative voice >that reminds us how perfect it is -- you want orgies? OK, >you can have orgies, but they'll be nice ones). And, sometimes, >someone walks away. They don't know what they're walking TO, >but they know very well what they're walking away FROM. > >I don't think it resembles Jackson's Lottery all that much. >No one questions the lottery except the woman who gets >stoned. Even her kids cooperate. (And we see that she's a >nice average housewife type who cleaned up the kitchen before >she came to her death.) And no one knows why they have the >lottery; it's a custom, that's all, and there's a saying that >if they don't have it they won't have a good year. That kind >of residual superstition does occur, in many forms, but it's >usually subconscious. Le Guin does not allow that comfortable >out. > > >Martha Bartter >Truman State University > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:36:01 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anastasia McPherson Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970506142958.37ff6d92@academic.truman.edu> from "Martha Bartter" at May 6, 97 02:27:04 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What collection is this story in - I was in the bookstore last night and couldnt find it. Thanks - Tasia ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:44:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: ding-ding-ding! (note from moderator) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Welcome to our 150th subscriber! Is this a critical mass, or what? Laura M. Quilter / lauramd@uic.edu Electronic Services Librarian University of Illinois at Chicago http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/ "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:15:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Madalyn Galdamez Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Tasia: I got Ursula LeGuin's short story from an anthology of English literature called "Elements of Literature: Essay, Fiction, Poetry, Drama, Film." Madalyn At 10:36 AM 5/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >What collection is this story in - I was in the bookstore last night and >couldnt find it. > >Thanks - Tasia > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:43:26 -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: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: <199705071436.KAA03795@mail.med.upenn.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" originally appeared in New Dimensions 3, edited, I believe by Robert Silverberg. It was first reprinted in Le Guin's collection The Winds' Twelve Quarters. Mike On Wed, 7 May 1997, Anastasia McPherson wrote: > What collection is this story in - I was in the bookstore last night and > couldnt find it. > > Thanks - Tasia > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:03:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anastasia McPherson Subject: Re: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas In-Reply-To: from "Michael Marc Levy" at May 7, 97 11:43:26 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit thank you one and all for your help with this. > > "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" originally appeared in New > Dimensions 3, edited, I believe by Robert Silverberg. It was first > reprinted in Le Guin's collection The Winds' Twelve Quarters. > > Mike > > On Wed, 7 May 1997, Anastasia McPherson wrote: > > > What collection is this story in - I was in the bookstore last night and > > couldnt find it. > > > > Thanks - Tasia > > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:47:22 -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: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- This story was in The Wind's Twelve Quarters, currently a HarperPrism paperback. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be." - Yogi Berra