From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri May 22 09:16:33 1998 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:13:17 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9711B" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:39:54 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Introduction (Tardy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > Naturally I don't think that Star > Trek books are causing the end of science fiction > as we know it, but that's a rant deserving of its > own message. (One that I wrote but haven't decided > whether to post.) Vonda, Actually, I'd love to see that rant. Could you also address your experience at Bantam with _The Crystal Star_? And the _SW_ universe in contrast to the _ST_ universe? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:11:02 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: <3463AFC1.5220C0DE@mint.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Nina -- Thanks for the kind words. On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:18:09 -0500, "Nina M. Osier" wrote: >Vonda, please do post that so-called "rant"! I discovered your other OK. I may be sorry, but I'm persuaded. >books after reading one of your Star Trek novels, and I'm very glad that Me too. It's fairly rare, by the way, for media tie-in readers to pay attention to the authors. (Or to the original fiction by those authors.) Awfully nice when it occurs, though. >happened. Also, I will say shamelessly that I waited from 1966 until >ST:Voyager came on the air wishing to see a female ST captain who wasn't Me too. It gave me great pleasure to put Mandala Flynn and Captain Hunter into Entropy Effect. >a nut case (I'm referring to a certain episode of the original Star >Trek, either you'll understand this reference or you won't) and that I >thoroughly enjoy Kate Mulgrew's character. > If I'm thinking of the same episode you are, she wasn't a nut case captain. She was a nut case because she wasn't _allowed_ to be a captain. But it's been a long time so I could be wrong. I often am. Best, Vonda http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:11:00 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (I debated with myself over whether to send this. It turned into a bit of a rant so it's kind of long; I apologize. You guys encouraged me, so it's all your fault. -- V.) A week or so ago someone bemoaned the poor quality of novel manuscripts by new writers and the poor judgment of the reading audience in preferring media tie-in books to mainstream sf. This was my response. I know writers who published two or three or TWENTY creditable sf novels but who cannot sell their (equally creditable, or better) third or fourth or twenty-first novels. The excuse is that their previous novels didn't sell enough copies so the chain stores will no longer order their books. (Whether this is true or not, I don't know; it's the reason they were given.) Some of these writers have been offered the chance to "start over" again with a new name, a third or fourth or twentieth novel published as a "first novel" -- and, oh, by the way, you have to take a first novel advance for the book, too. How can one enthusiastically encourage new writers when one is aware of the sort of treatment they're likely to encounter? What can one say to a new writer who has sent a bit of their heart to a publisher who's sat on it for a year without a word? As for tie-ins, I must disagree with the idea that the difficulties sf is having are due to the preference of readers for media tie-in books. This rather widely-held belief presupposes that the audience for tie-in books includes all the same people as the audience for mainstream sf, and that they choose tie-ins over original novels. It's always made to sound like a child choosing halloween candy over broccoli. I think this is a false analogy. One could make as good a case (probably better) for the preference of readers for romance or mystery or even fantasy over sf. It _is_ a difficulty that the means of production and the shelf space for media tie-ins are connected, more or less by accident, with the means of production and the shelf space for sf. If blockbuster movies were mysteries or romances, the tie-in production resources and shelf space would be in their corners of bookstores. SF movies and sf novels kinda sorta bear a vague resemblance to each other so they end up in the same place. The audience, however, is quite different. The audience for media tie-in books is at a minimum ten times the size of the audience for science fiction. It is, in my experience, an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AUDIENCE. If I and every other writer who had ever written a Star Trek or Star Wars book were taken out and killed, as some of our colleagues would like, and all our books burned, it would make not a blip's worth of difference on the sales curve for mainstream science fiction. Having a bestselling tie-in novel will have virtually no effect on one's original fiction sales, much as one might wish the opposite. The folks who enjoy media tie-in books are looking for a different experience. Not better. Not worse. Just _different_. One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for the reader of mainstream sf is that they support quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who would find it difficult to subsist on the advances for their original novels. It does none of us, readers or writers, any good to keep wailing about how media tie-in books are wiping out science fiction. It isn't true. Nor would wiping out media tie-in books help sf. The only thing that will keep sf from becoming boutique publishing, as the average sales of the average mass-market sf novel continue to plummet, is trying to expand the audience for science fiction. Whether that's possible, I have no idea. For all I know, the sf audience (actual _or_ potential) is finite and saturated. I know nothing about advertising or marketing. I wouldn't even know how to start attempting to enlarge the market. My level of advertising sophistication would run more or less to Uncle Martin growing his antennae and asking, "Got Science Fiction?" If I had a couple million bucks, I'd hire Eileen Gunn and ask her to try a publicity campaign. I think marketing niches and pigeonholing are a lot more dangerous to sf than media tie-in novels. I think we may be sub-ghettoizing ourselves out of existence: Can't count "Flowers for Algernon" as science fiction because... because why? Maybe because it was too good? (I heard that the following happened but have no independent proof of it. Consider it, at best, secondhand gossip. But I think it accurately reflects the mind-set of a large proportion of sf writers.) Michael Crichton wants to join SFWA? Let's ridicule him until he goes away, because... because why? Because he's a worse writer, technically, than anybody else in the organization? Not bloody likely. (Besides, nobody ever asks about the quality of your writing when you apply to join SFWA. They ask if you've sold something to a professional market.) Because he makes classic sf ideas accessible to a wider audience? (Gosh, what a horrible concept.) Could it be because... because he makes too much money? A long-time member of SFWA tried to define Ursula K. Le Guin as "not a science fiction writer" because she writes in other genres. (Ursula herself always describes herself, first, as "a science fiction writer," and this moronic campaign against her very much hurt her feelings.) I do know that my book The Moon and the Sun, which straddles several genres (sf, historical fiction, alternate history, fantasy), has gotten, first, the best reviews of any book of my career, and, second, the following comment from a seriously depressing number of publications that might have been expected to review it: "Gosh. It's a wonderful book. We love it. But... we don't know how to pigeonhole it. So we're going to ignore it." Vonda Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:22:06 -0400: >I certainly haven't been deluged in quality >manuscripts from new authors http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:21:19 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Geoffrey, The rant is more about media tie-in books after they're published, than it is about writing them in the first place. I think I'm already pushing the envelope of "feminist sf" by posting my tie-in novel rant; probably would be best not to gum up the mailing list with Tie In Novel War Stories. Especially since my experiences were quite pleasant, particularly compared to the experiences of people who have worked in the field more recently. Now, if anybody wants to discuss the Bondage & Discipline B/a/r/b/i/e/ Leia action figure, which we are apparently supposed to run right out and buy for all the little girls on our Xmas lists, that might could fit the mailing list's parameters. Vonda On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:39:54 -0400, "Geoffrey D. Sperl" wrote: >Vonda, > >Actually, I'd love to see that rant. Could you also address your >experience at Bantam with _The Crystal Star_? And the _SW_ universe in >contrast to the _ST_ universe? > >- Geoffrey http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 05:45:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Starship Troopers Movie Hi all. I realize this isn't a book, so please bear with my somewhat off-topic-ness, but I just have to rant about this big hunk of crap (pardon my language, but frankly, I'd like to call it a lot worse). For any who intend to see it, I would recommend not paying full price. Otherwise, on with my rant. <<<>>>>> First a disclaimer: I have not read the book, and I do realize that some of these problems may only be with the treatment of the story by the makers of the movie, and not any actual fault of the book itself, but right now I'm in no real hurry to read the book, so if the book does any of this better, I will bow to those who have read it. Okay. Here goes: 1.) Not only was it very anti-feminist, it wasn't even good sci-fi. 2.) I'm very very tired of movies which go along with the old slasher-flick rule of "Sex Equals Death." The only female character who survives the movie is the young woman who declines having sex with anyone (at least where we can see it). The woman who is the same age who decides to have sex (where we can see), dies as soon as possible. Of course she's given the "dignity" of first pulling off this big tactical win, but she dies pretty well right after. AND her dying words are something to the effect of "At least I got to have you," to the rich, white, brawn-over-brains hero of the whole thing, whose heart actually belongs to the other woman. 3.) A woman supposedly in an equal opportunity military outfit, upon being asked if she'll take a certain command, replies with "I'm your girl." Puh-lease!!!! 4.) Back to the "...not even good sci-fi" thing: A society that can come up with faster-than-light travel and can simply *mend* flesh by basically "knitting" it back together, somehow cannot come up with energy weapons, energy shields, or even decent armor. *Everything* gets through this armor!!! *And* they cannot build a fortification! They actually build a compound with the structural supports for the outer walls on the outside! (This is one of those that a friend reports was treated much better in the book.) 5.) By the end of the movie, I felt like I'd been watching Nazi propaganda. I saw a "Making of Starship Troopers" thing in which they said (sorry about the "they", I don't remember who exactly had been talking at the time, but "they" in this instance refers to the makers of the movie) that they'd been trying to copy the old WWII newsreels and that sort of thing, but they also brought along some frightening SS-looking uniforms for some of the good guys which made me, at least, distinctly uncomfortable. 6.) Final point: I've recently been re-reading _Backlash_ by Susan Faludi, and I'm reminded by Starship Troopers of the phenomenon in the fifties in which suddenly all the movies were Westerns or war movies, effectively shutting women completely off the screen. This movie doesn't shut women off the screen, but it does leave most women out of the theater. Both the "war" storyline, as well as the violence on the screen (I've been watching sci-fi since childhood, so I'm kind of used to a bit of ooky-ness, and this had me about ready to walk out of the theater), will make most women avoid it altogether. 7.) And finally, on a purely stylistic note: I have a very difficult time with any movie that decides it can depict the future by showing today's fashions, only shiny and with go-go boots. For a group of movie-makers who were so careful that their bugs looked good and realistic, they didn't care much if the non-bug portions of the movie were even remotely realistic. Okay, well, that's the basics of my rant. I just had to get this off my chest, and hopefully give fair warning to anyone who was considering spending real money on this. To be completely honest, I probably would have waited for the video (if I saw it at all), but I was coerced by my dearest boyfriend, who has a strange thing for bug movies. That's love for ya, I guess. To his credit, he was deeply disappointed by it as well. Well, thanks for listening (whatever) to my rant, and please forgive any typos, I started this at 4am after seeing a midnight showing (thank goodness I didn't pay full price for this thing!), and spending over an hour over sodas (no product placement here!) commiserating with said boyfriend over how bad it was. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 06:25:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: some intro, TV/movies I kind of did this a while ago, but for the newer folks, here goes: Barbara Benesch, 24, currently working as a temp and desperately looking for a job in word processing/desktop publishing (my kingdom for a job of my *own*!). Also living with my boyfriend of four years and wishing we could afford a dog. I actually do read "voraciously" - my mother used to comment that even cereal boxes weren't safe from me - and have been a feminist long before I really understood what the word meant. I grew up a Girl Scout (seriously, I was in for 13 years), and that's where a lot of my feminism came from, long before my first women's studies class. I went to Illinois State University for a few years until I realized I was spending more time at my job with the student newspaper than on my homework, at which point I left. While I was there, I was a double major in English and biology, and got very interested in women's studies along the way. I usually have several "soapboxes" going at any given time, but one of my most consistent (they never really leave, just kind of fade into the background for a while) is people who continue to allow "feminist" to be a dirty word, while enjoying the benefits of feminism at every turn. I live in central Illinois, and enjoy reading, writing (although I don't do as much fiction writing of my own as I would like), entertaining my media addiction (I try to keep it in check, or at least avoid those things which I really detest, but I must admit it doesn't always work - for instance I'm currently watching Tom & Jerry on Toon Network), and playing role playing games. I also *love* anything to do with the outdoors. Also, I'm very happy to be on this list, particulary with so many people who are actually out there making a living writing science fiction/fantasy. Perhaps it's not really *that* many, but since I hadn't actually thought I'd get to meet any celebrities on the 'net (I'm showing my "awestruck fan" roots here, I'm afraid), it seems like a lot. Regardless, I'm honored to share list space with people who are actually *making* science fiction today. Once again, more than some of you probably wanted to know, but it's me. In a message dated 97-11-07 19:07:43 EST, Stephen Smith (Julien?) wrote: > Though I do not read SF, I do watch a lot of it. I was kind of hoping > people > would be interested in discussing SF film. I got my BA in Art History and > my > MA in Religious Studies. Right now I'm taking some courses in photography > and > computers. I am also following a degree scheme in English (another MA). I > love literature, and my interests are in the revision of myth or fables. > Furthermore, I am interested in the critical analysis of film and art. I > also > find cultural and social constructions of gender and sexuality fascinating. > Julien > > I too watch a great deal of sci-fi, both TV and film, and would be interested in a list dealing with sf/fantasy TV and films and critical analysis of them, with particular interest in the treatment of gender/sexuality. I don't know if there are any out there, but perhaps if there isn't it's something that maybe should be an off-shoot of this one or something (I'm still kind of a novice at this sort of thing, so I'm speaking very much off-the-cuff here). Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:12:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Gibbon's Decline and Fall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jana, this is a real problem for me and I suspect this may be true for more women than we realize. Spirituality and its corporate expression is by my own choice an important part of my life, and interacting within the church that I carefully chose in adulthood as being the least male-dominated one that answered my needs is an ongoing challenge. Yet just when I am utterly disgusted, I at last hear during the communion ritual the wonderful words: "God who gave birth to you..." and then I realize that all my ranting and raving during leadership functions is not only being heard, but sometimes actually comprehended. And so I stay, because to me this is important and someone has to keep do that yelling. Perhaps it may seem to someone looking on that I'm accepting oppression, but I doubt if my fellow members see me that way! "Suffer fools gladly" is one Biblical command I've never been the least bit able to obey.... Nina Jana C. McCormick wrote: > I found this an insightful novel. I appreciate the statements > concerning > female oppression and religion. I love the "Hail Mary Assumption" but > I > thought the ending and, especially, the character of Webster a > cop-out. > Why did this evil character, similar to the devil, have to be in the > book? I > felt this was an example of how we, as humans, want to blame our own > behavior > on a higher power instead of taking responsibility for it. > > The example of women's exclusion from religion is enough of an example > for me > of how men believe women are inferior. Even in this enlightened age, > we have > come a long way but not long enough (it is quite amazing when you > think back > 50 or just 20 years ago), women like myself still accept oppression, > especially in religion. Perhaps, that is part of the reason religion > appears > to be in decline among younger generations. > If this is not so, I'm sure someone will enlighten me? In my > viewpoint, the > younger (American) generation is not interested, a larger minority, in > what > biases and prejudices religion has to offer. > Perhaps, I simply speak for myself. Many young people I know are not > interested in putting their disinterest into words. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who still regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent boys only. Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field of endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." That's our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much money did Emily Dickinson make...? Nina ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:26:55 -0500 Reply-To: Unca-lloyd@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: LLoyd McDaniel Subject: Re: from moderator: question re subscribers? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi; My intro seems to have missed a bit somewhere. I was all those things I quoted, (I'd thought privately to the listmgr...), in Orlando Florida, at the Orlando Area science-fiction Society convention, OASIS. Primarily 8-9-and ccnchair of 10. fannish Egoboo is my bane, so it's a little daunting to see yur name up in "lites" when you don't expect it... I'll go into 'lurk mode' for awhile.... LLoyd ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:00:41 -0500 Reply-To: "Jason A. Wallwork" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jason A. Wallwork" Subject: Re: Introduction (Tardy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>original novels. Naturally I don't think that Star >>Trek books are causing the end of science fiction >>as we know it, but that's a rant deserving of its >>own message. (One that I wrote but haven't decided >>whether to post.) >> > >Post it! Post it! Post it! Post it! I'm confused...are some of us here desirous of bashing Star Trek. Because if we're going to launch into that, I'd think it'd be off-focus and being a Star Trek fan, it would be a huge turn-off. Jason A. Wallwork jsheridan@bigfoot.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:14:49 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Movie Wow! that was a rant in the old style of rant...we have some commonalities:) Well my husband, who shares this email thing with me...hence the schitzophrenic name...also wants to see Starship Troopers. THe FX look brilliant, but I have been ambivalent about paying to see this. I like Verhoeven's work...esp Robocop, so I decided to take the gamble. The major drawback to this film seemed to me the casting. I hate it when they cast third rate American beauty kings and queens...as if we can all relate to that vacuousness. Also one of the only actresses I recognized ruined "Dragonheart." What is it with Hollywood casting an entire supporting cast of Brits and throwing in lead American actors who both cannot do an accent to save their lives and who really cannot act but add the beauty factor. (GRINDING OF TEETH) I appreciate your comments on both the need for a site for those of us movie-philes, SF aficianados, and feminists. Hollywood ALWAYS has me on a soapbox. I too own Faludi's backlash but haven't read it properly. I have about 1000 other books competing for my attention. I took a film criticism course that discussed the sci film, westerns and war films. WOmen are generally either absent or killed off quickly (well let's not forget the harlot with a heart of gold in westerns...ahhh!) That comment on women in slasher films is also a good one. Sex always equals death. If you see two going at it hot and heavy, you know a decapitation or slaughter isn't far away. Speaking of horror/sf films (you'll take note my nickname is grasshopper...aptly named as that describes my brain activity to a tee) Last night i finally watched "Videodrome" a movie from 1982. Directed by David Cronenberg (a man I love but don't know why.) and starring James Woods and Debbie Harry. He raises some really interesting ideas in that movie about violence as portrayed on tv and how it desensitizes people to violence inthe real world. I also found it interesting that he depicts sadio-masicistic (sp) gender roles...the woman of course being on the masicistic end. Angela Carter wrote a book called "the Sadeain Woman" about the women in novels by the Marquis de Sade. She examines the roles of women as both the victim and victor. ANYWAY my point is...women tend to always be on the receiving end of pain and torture...and so many movies love to show women in this light. TO me this is just sick...and supports a rape culture. (or it feeds that culture that perpetuates it. well that's it for me...I'm very glad to hear from you Barbara...and thanks for the warning about starship troopers...but are the FX good? Speaking of Insect films, did you and your boyfriend happen to see "Mimic? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:26:28 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Gibbon's Decline and Fall Jana: I spent my M.A. years wrestling with the very problem of the exclusion or inferior placement of women within religious structures. During the course of my Religious studies degree, I took some courses in women's expression within Christianity, esp women's religious experiences. I also examined other religion's attitudes towards women. Islam is one of the most interesting, because they state that all should be equal. It was even something that Mohammed taught. However, in practice that isn't how it has come out. If you are interested in Islam read Mernissi's book called the "veil and the male elite." Mernissi is I think Egyptian and has studies Islamic tenets very thoroughly. THis is a brilliant analysis of how patriarchal culture twists things to mould their own ideas. Christianity is also very frustrating in many ways. Catholicism still won't allow women priests because they would distract the male priests from their vow of celibacy. This is also the argument for women to wear veils. Its as if men are so base they cannot control themselves. its a shame isn't it? (sarcasm) Instead of taking the blame themselves...they make women cover up and exclude them from religious vocation. SOmehow forgetting the problem will make it go away. Yeah right. ANother really interesting book on women's bodies within modern culture and religion is Bordo's "Unbearable weight." It is also a brilliant book. One of my interests is how women particularly feminist writers have taken religious myths and interverted them. Muriel Spark and Angela Carter (even Anne Sexton and SYlvia Plath) have taken biblical myths and played with them to expose the chauvenism of them. I think "Passion for a NEw Eve" by Carter exposes the social construct of gender. SHe really is a very witty and ascerbic writer. Julien ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:31:32 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) HI Vonda: I was rather shocked to find you posting on this site and must say I thought it was a bit of a fluke. In high school I was enamoured with "the Bride" for some reason (movie with Sting and Jennifer Beals) and used your movie adaptation for my forensics circuit. I am curious about this princess Leia bondage doll. If you could rant more about that I would be interested. Funny that men tend to remember Leia in that slave dress in the beginning of "Return of the Jedi" than anything else. (did you see the episode of Friends in which Ross wanted Rachel to dress like that? it was his sexual fantasy...yawn) Also where are all the females in Lucas's creations? the only main female character is Leia and she becomes more of a sexual pawn between Han and Luke...yes who will get the rich princess? I love Lucas don't get me wrong...but Julien ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:52:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cheryl Hall Subject: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199711080603.AAA04516@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Following the tide of slightly-overdue-introductions-after-a-few-posts: If I remember correctly, I discovered this list when it was posted on the Society for Women in Philosophy discussion list. I teach political theory and feminist theory at the University of South Florida, which is in Tampa (and for those of you who know anything about Florida geography, no, there isn't a University of Really South Florida). I also currently co-edit _Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy_. My "fun" reading consists almost exclusively of feminist science fiction, but actually work and play aren't so separate since I think sf is essentially another form of political theory. As for how I got here, I remember reading things like the Narnia Tales, A Wrinkle in Time, and eventually Asimov's Foundation series as a kid, but didn't discover feminist science fiction until I got to UC Santa Cruz in the early 80's and met a friend who had taken a class on it from Donna Haraway the year before. Though I practically begged Donna to teach it again before I graduated, alas it was not to be. Still, my friend fed me novels all year long, and when she left I realized my source was gone and it was high time to start my own collection. Following common academic practice, my solution to not getting to take a course in feminist science fiction was to teach one at my earliest opportunity. My all time favorite feminist "utopia" remains Woman on the Edge of Time; I would move to Mattappoissett in two seconds flat. Other favorite novels include The Female Man, Native Tongue, A Door Into Ocean, some of Tiptree's stories, Cry Wolf (by Aileen La Tourette), The Kin of Ata (by Dorothy Bryant), and virtually anything by Le Guin, especially The Dispossessed and The Eye of the Heron. Recent (to me) discoveries include The Fifth Sacred Thing, The City, Not Long After (by Pat Murphy), Mindplayers (by Pat Cadigan), and Le Guin's 2 latest collections of stories. At least one recurring theme one might notice from this list is that of violent vs. nonviolent resistance to oppression; the question of *how* to "change reality" without reinstalling violence and domination continues to fascinate me. Quick aside to Susan Palwick: after reading about it on this list, I recently read Kim Antieau's The Jigsaw Woman, which deals with abuse, and at least to my mind had some echoes of what has been called multiple personality disorder, of course one not uncommon survival strategy for abuse survivors. Sign me another somewhat long-winded academic type-- --- Cheryl Hall Department of Government & International Affairs University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620 ph:(813) 974-0819 fax:(813) 974-0832 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:25:51 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Jana C. McCormick To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 11:22 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) >Seven Years in Tibet, an excellent movie, is an example of how the "teaching >of compassion" depends upon the person and the setting/situation. >>Neil Rest says: >><< the purpost of the culture of Tibet is to maximize compassion.>> > >For instance, fear of foreigners kept the people from providing temporary >assistance. Until one man stepped in... >I don't want to ruin the story for anyone. It's in theaters now. >This is a true story and, I believe a wonderful opportunity, politically, for >the people of Tibet to let Americans know what is going on. Americans are >more likely to watch the movie than to seek out the few news reports >concerning the oppression of people of Tibet and the Dalai Lama. I agree, it was truly an excellent movie (even though it does star Brad Pitt) It is on a par with Schindler's List, only easier to watch. I think it is an excellent movie, that everyone should see. Perhaps even worthy of the Best Picture award! (no, I don't work for any movie company, I am just a college student.) Becca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:37:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Gibbon's Decline and Fall MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I found this an insightful novel. I appreciate the statements concerning >female oppression and religion. I love the "Hail Mary Assumption" but I >thought the ending and, especially, the character of Webster a cop-out. >Why did this evil character, similar to the devil, have to be in the book? I >felt this was an example of how we, as humans, want to blame our own behavior >on a higher power instead of taking responsibility for it. > >The example of women's exclusion from religion is enough of an example for me >of how men believe women are inferior. Even in this enlightened age, we have >come a long way but not long enough (it is quite amazing when you think back >50 or just 20 years ago), women like myself still accept oppression, >especially in religion. Perhaps, that is part of the reason religion appears >to be in decline among younger generations. >If this is not so, I'm sure someone will enlighten me? In my viewpoint, the >younger (American) generation is not interested, a larger minority, in what >biases and prejudices religion has to offer. >Perhaps, I simply speak for myself. Many young people I know are not >interested in putting their disinterest into words. > Speaking as an eighteen year old college student, I believe I am one of the "young people" you are referring to. I am very interested in putting my feelings into words. I grew up Jewish, was raised belonging to every type of Synagogue from Orthodox to Reform, and for a while, even considered becoming a Rabbi. what changed all that? When my grandfather died, our Rabbi learned that he had worked three jobs at a time to keep food on the table, and the Rabbi turned hi nose up at us and refused to lead the services of mourning after the funeral. I stepped in. I knew the services, and I had been leading the Sunday school services at the synagogue for over a year. (I was teaching there). When the rest of the community heard that I was leading the service for my family and friends, I got both barrels. (this was a reform community!) "A woman cannot lead the Shiva service" I heard this over and over. I became disgusted. I still attend high holiday services in respect for the family members of mine that died for Judaism (Dachau, Auschwitz, and some other less famous camps) But I am no longer a Jew. I cannot worship a deity that forbids womyn from praying, or practice a religion where in a Rabbi may turn their nose up at a family because they are not white-collar. I fell in with a group of Wiccans, they were very kind to me, and expected nothing from me. I now consider myself a pagan and I worship the goddess in her three forms (maid mother and crone), and I revere Gaia (the earth mother). This makes more sense to me. Paganism believes that people are people, and no-one needs to be subservient to any one else. The main tenant of paganism is : And it harm NONE! do what thou wilt. This I like. Sorry about my prattling off topic, but you did ask... ;) Becca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:43:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to Julien's question about the Kansas conference -- which is in Manhattan, not Wichita -- it's subtitled "Violence Incorporated" and is being held from March 12-14, 1998. I think the conference has a website, but I don't know the URL. Those of you out there debating the oppression of women in religion: what does anyone think of the work of Matthew Fox? I discovered his books a few years ago and felt as if FINALLY someone was describing my own spiritual beliefs -- beliefs I'd held for a long time but had never found written down in one place. For those of you who don't know his work, I recommend "A Spirituality Named Compassion" and "The Reinvention of Work." Now I'm going to go into Devil's Advocate mode. To the folks who are complaining about the Leia-in-bondage doll: yeah, it's a pretty silly outfit, but please remember that in the movie, that's what she's wearing when she strangles what's-his-face with the chain and manages to get away. She needs a bit of help to do it, but the silly outfit doesn't remove any of her spunk. Please, let's not judge the character even of so 2D a persona as Leia by what she's wearing: that's a bit anti-feminist in itself, no? To me, one of the things feminism is about is realizing that women have brains even when they're wearing skimpy outfits . . . and even (*gasp!*) when they may have *chosen,* unlike Leia, to wear those outfits, for whatever reason. Granted, this may not have been the rationale of the people doing the marketing. *Sigh* And to Barbara Benesch, who writes of "Starship Troopers," "both the 'war' storyline, as well as the violence on the screen . . . will make most women avoid it altogether," please watch your assumptions. :) I know *plenty* of women who enjoy the occasional shlock gore-fest, and who aren't inherently opposed to militarism. Heck, I know women who've been in the armed services. I'll probably be seeing the movie myself this weekend, and I cheerfully expect to hate it on a number of grounds (not least the fact that it's based on a Heinlein novel, and most of the women *I* know DO object to his misogyny). Still, there have been plenty of violent movies I've enjoyed (the work of Quentin Tarantino springs to mind). Again, for me, feminism means being able to define my *own* preferences and priorities, rather than having to accept the labels either of patriarchal men or of other feminists. Oh, one last thing -- although this may be off-topic (moderator, please squelch me if it is): what do folks here think about the SUNY controversy? (Seems to me that sexual imagination falls into the realm of fantasy, but maybe that's too broad an interpretation.) Okay, I'm done playing Devil's Advocate for the moment. Peace to all, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:48:35 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Market for SFF (was Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It?) >I wouldn't even know how to start attempting to enlarge the market. This is a question which has quite a bit of resonance for me at the moment as there's a move afoot at work (a specialist library) to try and get more readers through the doors, more quantifiable statistics of use, etc. The approach being undertaken seems to me a bit scattershot, as though getting people through the door is an end in itself, rather than making sure that the users who really need to know about our collections, but don't, are able to hear about us (and I'm sure there are large nos of these). And I often wonder, does anything have to appeal to everybody, or even the majority, or at least a large percentage? Why shouldn't things be a minority interest? There are innumerable minority interests which nonetheless have a wide enough basis of support (given that a single-figure percentage of the contemporary literate, book-buying population is still A LOT of people) that they are economically viable in publishing terms (not just fiction but hobby interests, etc). I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that far more people had bought the 2 anthologies in which my 2 published short stories appear, than either of my academic works, although (because of the economics of academic publication) both of the latter are thought to have done quite well, since more people buy Penguin anthologies (I imagine) than buy hardbacks from Yale UP. I realise that this may not be the way publishing conglomerates think: though I do have a vague sense of reading somewhere that the thing these days IS 'niche-marketing' rather than selling everything like boxes of washing powder. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:21:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: <34853b0d.379924648@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Now, if anybody wants to discuss the Bondage & >Discipline B/a/r/b/i/e/ Leia action figure, which >we are apparently supposed to run right out and >buy for all the little girls on our Xmas lists, >that might could fit the mailing list's >parameters. > >Vonda > Vonda, This sounds sorta spooky. What is it? Another rip on Barbie? -Sean Death has its own honor. To refuse to live is the height of dishonor. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 16:23:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >HI Vonda: > I was rather shocked to find you posting on this site and must >say I thought >it was a bit of a fluke. In high school I was enamoured with "the Bride" for >some reason (movie with Sting and Jennifer Beals) and used your movie >adaptation for my forensics circuit. > I am curious about this princess Leia bondage doll. If you could >rant more >about that I would be interested. Funny that men tend to remember Leia in >that slave dress in the beginning of "Return of the Jedi" than anything else. >(did you see the episode of Friends in which Ross wanted Rachel to dress like >that? it was his sexual fantasy...yawn) Funny, I almost always think of Leia in the white dress and the cinnamon roll hairdo. -Sean Death has its own honor. To refuse to live is the height of dishonor. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:18:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Sean Johnston To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Saturday, November 08, 1997 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) >> >>Now, if anybody wants to discuss the Bondage & >>Discipline B/a/r/b/i/e/ Leia action figure, which >>we are apparently supposed to run right out and >>buy for all the little girls on our Xmas lists, >>that might could fit the mailing list's >>parameters. >> >>Vonda >> > >Vonda, > This sounds sorta spooky. What is it? Another rip on Barbie? > >-Sean > >Death has its own honor. To refuse to live is the height of dishonor. I too am very curious about this, I remember her with the funky bagel hair-do and the white dress, but I do see where the bondage doll could come from, but is Mattel (tm) actually doing that? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:57:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In a message dated 97-11-08 17:05:09 EST, Susan Palwick wrote: > And to Barbara Benesch, who writes of "Starship Troopers," "both the 'war' > storyline, as well as the violence on the screen . . . will make most > women avoid it altogether," please watch your assumptions. :) I know > *plenty* of women who enjoy the occasional shlock gore-fest, and who > aren't inherently opposed to militarism. Heck, I know women who've been > in the armed services. I'll probably be seeing the movie myself this > weekend, and I cheerfully expect to hate it on a number of grounds (not > least the fact that it's based on a Heinlein novel, and most of the women > *I* know DO object to his misogyny). Still, there have been plenty of > violent movies I've enjoyed (the work of Quentin Tarantino springs to > mind). Again, for me, feminism means being able to define my *own* > preferences and priorities, rather than having to accept the labels either > of patriarchal men or of other feminists. Susan, I stated myself badly (I was writing at 4a.m. after having been up all day and seeing a midnight show). I too enjoy a good "butt-kicking" sort of movie, and know women who've been in the armed forces, and even considered joining myself for a while, and (while this may be too much information) fully support women in combat, as far as that goes. When I spoke of "keeping most women out of the theater", I was speaking more of women like my mother, who would be willing to see "Men in Black" but will definitely not see "Alien: Resurrection" (which I am *desperately* looking forward to, although I am half-expecting to be disappointed by some of the feminist themes therein), as she is not actually "into" science fiction, but will watch the occasional more mainstream science fiction movie. Women who are not necessarily into science fiction were more of who I was discussing there. Sorry I was not clear. Also, as far as the gory aspect of the movie, I will fall upon the words of one of my friends who saw it with me: "After the tenth evisceration, you either got used to it or started to get sick." I can take a certain amount of violence, but after too much, I'm no longer comfortable, or enjoying whatever movie I'm watching (and I'm speaking strictly for myself here). I think what made me most uncomfortable was that if the point of the unending violence in the movie was to demonstrate the brutalities of war, then the teenage males I observed in the theater didn't seem touched by it. Susan, I agree - the point of feminism is for women to choose for themselves what they do and do not enjoy, free of patriarchal influence over what is "proper" for women to enjoy. Believe me, all through high school I was looked at strangely because I was a girl who was into science fiction, and so I'm definitely a supporter of women choosing for themselves what they do and do not enjoy. I would be interested to hear what you thought of the movie once you have seen it, if you don't mind. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:45:01 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers I must report that just a few hours ago, I sat through "starship troopers." First I would like to commend Verhoever for returning to a genre he does well. I think to appreciate the movie, you have to know some of his other work...most notably "robocop" of which this movie most resembles. I don't think that he was advocating violence, rather he is "taking the piss" (i don't know a good American equivalent to this phrase...maybe satirizing) of totalitarian, gung ho, I'm an American I'm going kick some alien butt ideologies. I think like Cronenberg he stretches the violence to its ultimate...not only for gross factor but to really evicerate his audience. If "videodrome" has any wisdom, its that what we see on screen registers as a kind of reality experience for us. War is grotesque and i think the movie depicts the guts and gore of it. People don't go into battle and emerge unscathed, they get limbs torn off or blown to bits. Verhoeven also follows "robocop" by employing the news updates or propaganda updates. They are, I think, not only showing what happens during wartime (remember the onslaught of coverage of the gulf war?) but he is also making a statement about the role of MEDIA in shaping peoples perceptions. In one scene a videographer keeps shooting the carnage despite the risk...think about the crazed papparazi that chase stars down the interstate at 100 miles an hour. I must also state that the females in the film don't fare that badly. There are atleast ENOUGH of them. In Gattaca ok there are women in the ranks, but they never say a word. Atleast these women can stand their own and in some cases out rank the men. I thought the shower scene was also interesting, as so many military films depict men as being slime of the earth. Sexually harrassing at every turn or atleast drawing attention to the physical differences (think GI JANE...she had to prove herself as a man to get that respect) in this film, the women are one of the guys. I think that has something to do with the Totalitarian or communist overtones...referring to others as "citizen" rather than Mr or Miss. Has anyone read this Heinlein book? I would be interested to know how it differs. Finally (yes I am going to stop soon) I agree with Barbara that those dying words of Dis were INCREDIBLY stupid. I do disagree that the response "I'm your girl" sounds dumb. Men say "im your man," so what is the difference? Overall I enjoyed the movie. At first it seems to be directed at the 16-18 crowd, as it has both an amazingly blemish free younger cast and stereotypical teenage angst storylines; however the often gratuitous violence rescues it from that. Anyone else for comment? Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Barbara Benesch Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 8:57 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers In a message dated 97-11-08 17:05:09 EST, Susan Palwick wrote: > And to Barbara Benesch, who writes of "Starship Troopers," "both the 'war' > storyline, as well as the violence on the screen . . . will make most > women avoid it altogether," please watch your assumptions. :) I know > *plenty* of women who enjoy the occasional shlock gore-fest, and who > aren't inherently opposed to militarism. Heck, I know women who've been > in the armed services. I'll probably be seeing the movie myself this > weekend, and I cheerfully expect to hate it on a number of grounds (not > least the fact that it's based on a Heinlein novel, and most of the women > *I* know DO object to his misogyny). Still, there have been plenty of > violent movies I've enjoyed (the work of Quentin Tarantino springs to > mind). Again, for me, feminism means being able to define my *own* > preferences and priorities, rather than having to accept the labels either > of patriarchal men or of other feminists. Susan, I stated myself badly (I was writing at 4a.m. after having been up all day and seeing a midnight show). I too enjoy a good "butt-kicking" sort of movie, and know women who've been in the armed forces, and even considered joining myself for a while, and (while this may be too much information) fully support women in combat, as far as that goes. When I spoke of "keeping most women out of the theater", I was speaking more of women like my mother, who would be willing to see "Men in Black" but will definitely not see "Alien: Resurrection" (which I am *desperately* looking forward to, although I am half-expecting to be disappointed by some of the feminist themes therein), as she is not actually "into" science fiction, but will watch the occasional more mainstream science fiction movie. Women who are not necessarily into science fiction were more of who I was discussing there. Sorry I was not clear. Also, as far as the gory aspect of the movie, I will fall upon the words of one of my friends who saw it with me: "After the tenth evisceration, you either got used to it or started to get sick." I can take a certain amount of violence, but after too much, I'm no longer comfortable, or enjoying whatever movie I'm watching (and I'm speaking strictly for myself here). I think what made me most uncomfortable was that if the point of the unending violence in the movie was to demonstrate the brutalities of war, then the teenage males I observed in the theater didn't seem touched by it. Susan, I agree - the point of feminism is for women to choose for themselves what they do and do not enjoy, free of patriarchal influence over what is "proper" for women to enjoy. Believe me, all through high school I was looked at strangely because I was a girl who was into science fiction, and so I'm definitely a supporter of women choosing for themselves what they do and do not enjoy. I would be interested to hear what you thought of the movie once you have seen it, if you don't mind. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 03:59:00 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers Susan: I have heard a bit about Matthew Fox's writing, but have never read any. I think he embraces a more holistic approach to deity doesn't he? I've seen him written about along with Wiccans. I think the Catholic church chucked him out. This is all coming off of a shaky memory. I also want to clarify this Leia issue. I don't think that anyone was castigating her for that outfit. I was stating the issue, because that outfit seems to be a kind of sexual turnon for men. I think my point was more what people have made of the outfit rather than her wearing it. I don't know if that was Lucas' way of sexualizing a "cold" female character. who knows. (she does dress in white...hmmm.) Since you brought this one up...i'm curious...what do you think then about dress and feminism? Do you think that dress isn't responsible for seeing women as objects? Does dress matter? is it an issue? I think it must be in some light. Merchandisers of really bad B movies know that they can increase video sales of a movie with a no name cast, director, or scriptwriter simply by putting a sexy, scantily clad woman on the cover of their box and mention the words "hot, sexy..."etc. Clothes or lack there of must make some impression upon the consumer. Julien PS: Now whether we can castigate a woman for dressing like that to sell...well that's another story;) This is a late response but I'm going to say it anyhow...about the Uma Thurman character in Gattaca. I felt that yes she stretched a bit beyond her role. However, I also was a bit bothered by the lines (mentioned several times) "you look alright from where i'm standing" She was to some degree a show piece, a beautiful object...remember the ballroom scene? ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Susan Palwick Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 3:43 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers In response to Julien's question about the Kansas conference -- which is in Manhattan, not Wichita -- it's subtitled "Violence Incorporated" and is being held from March 12-14, 1998. I think the conference has a website, but I don't know the URL. Those of you out there debating the oppression of women in religion: what does anyone think of the work of Matthew Fox? I discovered his books a few years ago and felt as if FINALLY someone was describing my own spiritual beliefs -- beliefs I'd held for a long time but had never found written down in one place. For those of you who don't know his work, I recommend "A Spirituality Named Compassion" and "The Reinvention of Work." Now I'm going to go into Devil's Advocate mode. To the folks who are complaining about the Leia-in-bondage doll: yeah, it's a pretty silly outfit, but please remember that in the movie, that's what she's wearing when she strangles what's-his-face with the chain and manages to get away. She needs a bit of help to do it, but the silly outfit doesn't remove any of her spunk. Please, let's not judge the character even of so 2D a persona as Leia by what she's wearing: that's a bit anti-feminist in itself, no? To me, one of the things feminism is about is realizing that women have brains even when they're wearing skimpy outfits . . . and even (*gasp!*) when they may have *chosen,* unlike Leia, to wear those outfits, for whatever reason. Granted, this may not have been the rationale of the people doing the marketing. *Sigh* And to Barbara Benesch, who writes of "Starship Troopers," "both the 'war' storyline, as well as the violence on the screen . . . will make most women avoid it altogether," please watch your assumptions. :) I know *plenty* of women who enjoy the occasional shlock gore-fest, and who aren't inherently opposed to militarism. Heck, I know women who've been in the armed services. I'll probably be seeing the movie myself this weekend, and I cheerfully expect to hate it on a number of grounds (not least the fact that it's based on a Heinlein novel, and most of the women *I* know DO object to his misogyny). Still, there have been plenty of violent movies I've enjoyed (the work of Quentin Tarantino springs to mind). Again, for me, feminism means being able to define my *own* preferences and priorities, rather than having to accept the labels either of patriarchal men or of other feminists. Oh, one last thing -- although this may be off-topic (moderator, please squelch me if it is): what do folks here think about the SUNY controversy? (Seems to me that sexual imagination falls into the realm of fantasy, but maybe that's too broad an interpretation.) Okay, I'm done playing Devil's Advocate for the moment. Peace to all, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:09:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen Smith (Julien) wrote: > Finally (yes I am going to stop soon) I agree with Barbara that > those dying words of Dis were INCREDIBLY stupid. I do disagree > that the response "I'm your girl" sounds dumb. Men say "im your > man," so what is the difference? > Julien I suspect the difference lies in the fact that men are adults and girls are not. A man saying "I'm your boy" would sound equally idiotic. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:20:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I caught the late afternoon matinee of _Starship Troopers_ and found it to be rather cartoon-ish. It bears only a slight, superficial resemblance to the book (at least as I remember it). *sigh* If you do go, don't expect a movie version of the book. At all. I've heard it described as, "loosely based on the back cover of the Heinlein novel." There's spoiler stuff below because I just had to rant some... Anyway, I'm going to try and keep quiet about this from now on because I have a desire to rant about it... -allen PS. For newcomers on the list... I'm a 27 year-old computer programmer with a long-time love of Science Fiction, Feminism, and Gay (and Lesbian, and Bi- ;-) Rights. I'm just getting more into femsf as I find it (and write down recommendations that come across this list). I was raised as a liberal Quaker, but don't now claim any church affiliation beyond that. I tend to enjoy "hard-sf" and "eco-femi-utopias" as well as some cyberpunk and the occasional fantasy. Authors that I like are Heinlein (can't help it ;-), Asimov, Bear, Slonczewski, Piercy, Diane Duane, Sheri Tepper, O. Butler, Nicola Griffith (I haven't picked up Slow River yet, though)-:, Le Guin, Pat Murphy, and a host of others. I'm currently making my way through the "New Legends" anthology put together by Bear and Greenburg(?) that I picked up at ICFA last March. I was at ICFA because my wife was presenting a paper there. *** Spoiler stuff *** The eviscerations didn't bother me too much. Probably because Alien/s was worse and at least parts of this looked a bit like Nickelodeon "slime" or "goop" or whatever they call it. I didn't find the special effects looking that great. The bugs didn't move realistically to me, nor did the ships. Some of the props looked like painted cardboard and seemed as flimsy. The death and dismemberment came across as kind of comic-book-y. It didn't seem real to me at all. I was surprised that Diaz's character wasn't choking on the fake blood. Was it just me, or did the bugs look something like the aliens in Alien/s? Coincidence, or are these monsters some sort of an amalgamation of some common fears? Some of the plot changes were understandable. Some seemed completely gratuitous. The whole love interest thing seemed to fit both categories. The whole Nazi thing was annoying. The weaponry was ludicrous. The surrounding technology was unbelievable (yes, only a Hollywood set designer would build a fort with supporting structures on the outside and without being sure of the security of the foundation. I'm a pacifist, though, so what do I know? And the asteroids? The bugs are clear on the other side of the galaxy. That's 100,000 light-years. And they're propelling ROCKS from there? At sub-light speed? In response to human incursions into their space? And this is set in the 23rd century? That's a bit too much disbelief for me to suspend. Oh. On the point that Barbara, I think, mentioned. I think it's pretty clear that Carmen is not a virgin (unless I completely misread "my father won't be home tonight."), but I'm not sure if that affects your argument. I came away from this movie kind of like I came away from _First Knight_, actually. I felt like so much more could have been done and that the subject matter was completely misunderstood by everyone from the screenwriters to the producers and hence the audience. ...and was it just me, or did the mouth of the "brain" bug resemble a sinister view of a part of human anatomy just a little bit? [*] Anyway, I think I'm going to have to read the book again to see how skewed my memories are. I can't imagine what they'd do with _Tunnel In the Sky_... ALL that said, the only feminist aspect of the book that I recall was Heinlein's assertion that women have better reaction and decision-making times and therefore make better pilots than men. And that was barely implied by the movie, so I'm thinking that this is off-topic... [*] Frank and graphic description of what I mean that I will probably regret sending when the morning rolls around follows. Please delete now if you will take offense, and please don't try to psycho-analyze me based on this. The mouth of the "brain" bug looked to me like a vulva with the brain-sucking attachment. After it sucked the brains out of Carmen's partner and was oozing toward her, it looked like it was leaking semen. Reading (probably) waaaay too much into it, it took a woman (Carmen) to remove the brain-sucker so that the men (specifically, the ultra-man, drill-sarge-dude) could bring the bug in, but of course, Private Zim gets all the credit. Blech. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:25:20 -0600 Reply-To: lguerra@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: luz guerra Subject: Re: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen Smith wrote: > > Susan: >....... > Since you brought this one up...i'm curious...what do you think then about > dress and feminism? Do you think that dress isn't responsible for seeing > women as objects? Does dress matter? is it an issue? I think it must be in > some light. Merchandisers of really bad B movies know that they can increase > video sales of a movie with a no name cast, director, or scriptwriter simply > by putting a sexy, scantily clad woman on the cover of their box and mention > the words "hot, sexy..."etc. Clothes or lack there of must make some > impression upon the consumer. > Julien > lg: Had to put in my two cents here (even though I haven't yet done the bio thing) 1) women were objectified BEFORE different cultures imposed an interpretation of what kind of women we were by what we were wearing. (Exposed or partially exposed breasts are not universal symbols of "hot & sexy", for example, but each culture has its image of what a "loose" or "bad" woman dresses like.) 2) Where men are, in general, NOT objectified, they can wear whatever they want and not necessarily be subjected to a cultural interpretation of their dress representing them as objects. For example, I live in a place where it is very HOT most of the year. Men can walk or run around with no shirts, body hair and nipples exposed, buttocks accentuated by clinging shorts and not be accused of dressing like sex objects, "asking for it" by their dress, or of presenting themselves as "hot, sexy..." the same is not true for women. Rambo was never called a slut for his bare chest. On the F/SF & movies theme and dress -- the daytime dress of men and women working at that "space corporation" in Gattaca tended towards gender-neutral and thus less sex-object-ish. (my ability to be coherent declines after 10 pm, sorry) In Star Wars, IMHO, clothing made clear that men were men and women were "princesses" -- thus the symbolism of Leia's white flowing gown-with-not-too-much-bosom vs Solo's rugged, sweaty gear. Then there were the days of Barbarella , Women of the Prehistoric Planet, One Million Years BC. Going back another decade, there was a Zsa Zsa Gabor movie about space queens on venus or something.... in all of these hollywood dressed women as "objects". Just in terms of dress not signifying women as objects the first Aliens film was a breath of fresh air... as it were. luz ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 01:56:20 -0500 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: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <19971108232008.20552@puma.macbsd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I too saw Starship Troopers this evening. Amazingly, I liked it, though perhaps my reaction has something to do with the beer I drank beforehand! I have to say that I thought women in general fared pretty well. There were plenty of them among the soldiers, and their presence seemed taken for granted. The group shower scene, in particular, surprised me -- there seemed to be no sexual innuendo attached to the men and women being naked together -- it was just normal. There were also quite a few women officers. However, there were some things that struck me as a little odd. As Allen mentioned, the brain bug's orifice seemed very like a vagina. Apparently there is something so disturbing about women's genitals that they're a natural model for evil alien nasty bits. (A recurrent visual element in the Alien movies' marketing is a glowing vertical slit.) And I thought Dizzy's last words, "At least I got to have you," were silly as all get out. She seemed obsessively fixated on Rico. But then Rico's choice to join the service was predicated on his obsessive fixation on Carmen... Basically, the movie seemed tongue in cheek. Very cynical. I had heard some talk of it beforehand (I have not read the book), particularly regarding the "fascism". Yes, the military did come across as driven by propaganda (I too thought of the "War In The Gulf" television footage), and there was one hint early in the film that perhaps the bugs were acting defensively... but that was disregarded by everyone. I was very amused towards the end when the previously hypothetical brain bug appeared, and you know what? It actually looked like a brain! And when it was captured, helpless, surrounded by enemy troops, the "psychic" guy (Doogie Howser, MD) placed his hand on its quivering noggin and pronounced, "It's AFRAID!" Deanna Troi, he's out for your job! I can only imagine that Verhoeven is laughing all the way to the bank. -- Janice ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead, OK Computer; Tricky, Pre-Millennium Tension "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:05:56 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? In-Reply-To: <34647774.AA8C9B91@mint.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Nina, I guess an eternal question of writing is the art v. business aspect. A benefit of success is that it allows you to continue doing what you like to do. Did Emily Dickinson ever have to worry where the next rent payment was coming from? (Or, if she did, did she have any reasonable hope of helping contribute to it, by publishing her poetry or in any other way? I don't know enough about her or the period she was living in to make even an educated guess.) Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up with the occasional sneer down the nose from a certain small subset of our colleagues, who are of the opinion that we should go out and get honest jobs -- that the world in general and sf in particular would be better off, and that we ourselves would be behaving in a more honorable manner. Most of the sneerers, I note, are not among those who have to worry particularly about paying the rent. Vonda On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500, "Nina M. Osier" wrote: >Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had >some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I >never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who still >regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent boys >only. > >Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also >saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field of >endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." That's >our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much >money did Emily Dickinson make...? > >Nina http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:05:58 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Julien, On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:31:32 UT, Stephen Smith wrote: >HI Vonda: > I was rather shocked to find you posting on this site and must say I thought >it was a bit of a fluke. How so? Um... have I been out of line in posting? >In high school I was enamoured with "the Bride" for >some reason (movie with Sting and Jennifer Beals) and used your movie >adaptation for my forensics circuit. Do you mean, to read while you were travelling? I'm sorry to be so ignorant but I have no clue what a forensics circuit is. I talked to the editor after the book had been on the stands for a while and asked him how it was doing. "It was selling great," he said. "Until the movie came out." The original screenplay was a charming feminist remake of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The movie managed to take out most of Eve's spark. Maybe it was just that the director was enamored of filming Jennifer Beals lying on a fainting couch, I dunno. > I am curious about this princess Leia bondage doll. If you could rant more >about that I would be interested. Funny that men tend to remember Leia in >that slave dress in the beginning of "Return of the Jedi" than anything else. >(did you see the episode of Friends in which Ross wanted Rachel to dress like >that? it was his sexual fantasy...yawn) Also where are all the females in >Lucas's creations? the only main female character is Leia and she becomes >more of a sexual pawn between Han and Luke...yes who will get the rich >princess? I love Lucas don't get me wrong...but >Julien After STAR WARS came out and the studio was sending out representatives to sf conventions to plug the second movie, one of the guys showing clips swore swore swore that there would be more women in subsequent movies. I think there were, what, two? in the background of EMPIRE. I nearly got a speeding ticket trying to get my Camaro to go into hyperspace on my way home from seeing STAR WARS the first time, but the lack of women characters, particularly in the background parts, was a serious and distressing flaw as far as I was concerned. For all I know, the Leia action figure is aimed at men rather than at kids. That would almost explain it. Vonda http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:06:03 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Market for SFF (was Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Lesley, Everything shouldn't appeal to everyone -- but the idea that it should is a big huge enormous problem in publishing today (_I_ think). Books that _don't_ appeal to everyone are the ones being weeded out in favor of books that sell a quarter of a million copies in the first six weeks. The same books don't even get enough time to find their audience. It used to be that sf novels stayed in print for a long time. That doesn't happen much anymore. The current audience for books is such a minuscule part of the potential audience for books -- even a huge bestseller sells to, what, 1/2 of 1% of the population? -- that maybe it would be a useful thing to try to enlarge the current audience. Not try to jam science fiction down the throats of people who realio trulio wouldn't like it, but try to get people who might like it at least to try it. And they sure won't if we ourselves sub-ghettoize the field and throw out everything that's "too good" or "too popular." Literary SF probably always will be a relatively small audience -- isn't literary fiction, period, a relatively small audience? -- but why not try to draw in people who would be interested in it, the same way you'd like to get the word out about your library collections? Vonda (Who still has no idea how one would begin to do this.) On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:48:35 UT, Lesley Hall wrote: >>I wouldn't even know how to start attempting to enlarge the market. > >This is a question which has quite a bit of resonance for me at the moment as >there's a move afoot at work (a specialist library) to try and get more >readers through the doors, more quantifiable statistics of use, etc. The >approach being undertaken seems to me a bit scattershot, as though getting >people through the door is an end in itself, rather than making sure that the >users who really need to know about our collections, but don't, are able to >hear about us (and I'm sure there are large nos of these). > >And I often wonder, does anything have to appeal to everybody, or even the >majority, or at least a large percentage? Why shouldn't things be a minority >interest? There are innumerable minority interests which nonetheless have a >wide enough basis of support (given that a single-figure percentage of the >contemporary literate, book-buying population is still A LOT of people) that >they are economically viable in publishing terms (not just fiction but hobby >interests, etc). > >I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that far more people had bought the 2 >anthologies in which my 2 published short stories appear, than either of my >academic works, although (because of the economics of academic publication) >both of the latter are thought to have done quite well, since more people buy >Penguin anthologies (I imagine) than buy hardbacks from Yale UP. > >I realise that this may not be the way publishing conglomerates think: though >I do have a vague sense of reading somewhere that the thing these days IS >'niche-marketing' rather than selling everything like boxes of washing powder. > >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:06:00 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Susan, Aiee, I was afraid my offhand mention of the Leia bondage action figure would start a flame war. I see and understand your point, but here's my take on it. I was talking to some friends last night about the action figure; I showed them the advertising flyer, which is the bulk of the Star Wars official newsletter. We were trying to figure out why it is that the action figure annoyed us while the movie scenes didn't necessarily do so. ("Us" being 4 people, all fans of the original movie series, one the author of a Star Wars novel mainly featuring Leia; all 4 of us of the feminist/ liberal stripe, computer geeks and writers, 2 women, 2 men, of Seattle fishbelly complexion, toward the straightish side of the preference curve.) As you say: In the movie Leia not only escapes, she uses the leash to strangle the slaver. With the action figure, there's no slaver to strangle. It's static. It's Leia in the bondage outfit, period. Neither the doll nor the character in the movie had any choice about the outfit she's wearing. I wouldn't bet that no woman had anything to say about the choice of the outfit... but I wouldn't bet against the possibility, either. (In what context does a slave have a choice about what to wear, in any event?) The other stuff being advertised prominently features the other characters (perhaps I should mention to any lurking Martians that the other characters in the Star Wars movies are men) in Jedi robes or flights suits or cool long black capes, mostly carrying guns or light sabers. I'm not that big on weapons -- though I have about a thousand letters from people who liked my Star Wars novel because it _wasn't_ all about space battles, I'm the spawn of satan on the internet for doing exactly what I was asked and expected to do in my book: including women and (eek!) children in the universe; and for _not_ blowing everything up real good. (Except an entire star system at the end, but I guess that doesn't count.) I'm not saying, Leia has to have a gun too, just like the boys. What I am saying is, why is the slave outfit the one they picked to sell her in? Why not the elegant senator's robes, or the flying motorcycle flight suit? Why not several outfits? (Then they could charge more.) Maybe they've done all those, but others aren't mentioned in the newsletter. There's no Luke covered with garbage action figure or Han Solo trapped in black plastic action figure. It just really pushed the wrong button for me. And it added to my distress and disillusionment about Lucasfilms, as did their support of the no-royalties contract for Star Wars books. (I won't bore the list with that story -- anybody who's interested can click on the "writers deserve royalties" button on my web page and get the original information & update.) I repeat to myself what I heard in Hollywood at every turn, every time I mentioned that a scene in a screenplay didn't make sense, that the emotional reaction of a character was absurd, that a biological process was spelled (and therefore pronounced) wrong: Vonda, don't be so PICKY. It's a MOVIE. Why should I let it bother me? It's only a movie. It's only a doll. It's only a modern myth. Shouldn't count for anything at all. Vonda On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:43:00 -0800, Susan Palwick wrote: >... >Now I'm going to go into Devil's Advocate mode. To the folks who are >complaining about the Leia-in-bondage doll: yeah, it's a pretty silly >outfit, but please remember that in the movie, that's what she's wearing >when she strangles what's-his-face with the chain and manages to get away. >She needs a bit of help to do it, but the silly outfit doesn't remove any >of her spunk. Please, let's not judge the character even of so 2D a >persona as Leia by what she's wearing: that's a bit anti-feminist in >itself, no? To me, one of the things feminism is about is realizing that >women have brains even when they're wearing skimpy outfits . . . and even >(*gasp!*) when they may have *chosen,* unlike Leia, to wear those outfits, >for whatever reason. Granted, this may not have been the rationale of the >people doing the marketing. *Sigh* > >... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:42:42 +0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: hongkai MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=HZ-GB-2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit unsubscibe feministsf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:26:08 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Market for SFF (was Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It?) Dear Vonda I toally agree that the problem is largely one not so much even of publishing economics but publishers' perception of what the market for books should be (i.e. more important that x no of people should buy the heavily marketed book within a few weeks of its appearance even if they don't finish it or even read it (Hawking's History of Time, anyone?), rather than that ?% of x should buy it, love it, and recommend it so that it gets a slow building word of mouth/e-mail list rep). (I heard somewhere that this was in some part due to some change in warehousing expenses?) Not unique to genre/fiction publishing of course: general plaint in academic circles that publishers are not interested in the serious research monographs which advance debate/state of knowledge but want text-books/collections of synthesis-essays which can be marketed in 1000s to the expanding (though how long for in the UK under current changes in higher education system) undergraduate market. The upside to academic publishers is that they do tend to realise that it may take some time for a scholarly work to take off to the point where it's being set as course reading and therefore keep it in print longer than a general press: sad saga of a friend of mine who has published a brilliant work on English feminism and sexual morality 1880 to 1914 (Lucy Bland, 'Banishing the Beast': highly recommended), with Penguin, and just as it's being assigned for student reading, it's gone out of print. The downside is that the books cost more! I suppose it is a question of how people get into reading sff in the first place: for me (looking back) I suppose that, apart from the usual Narnia books and so forth as a child, it was picking up 'The Left Hand of Darkness' in the local public library after Le Guin's Newbery (?) prize for 'Wizard of Earthsea' had been reported (and the book reviewed) in the 'Guardian'--very early '70s? Rather a haphazard process. How one promotes this--apart from the word-of-mouth process--I've no idea. Especially as the particular books one person loves may turn off another who might nonetheless be a potential 'convert'. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:22:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Julien - The difference is that men do NOT say, "I'm your boy." Nina Osier > Finally (yes I am going to stop soon) I agree with Barbara > that those dying > words of Dis were INCREDIBLY stupid. I do disagree that the response > "I'm > your girl" sounds dumb. Men say "im your man," so what is the > difference? > Anyone else for comment? > Julien > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:31:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And you are so right, Vonda! Here I sit getting ready to go to work on a new mss - knowing that my paycheck will greet me on Wednesday morning, and that while I'll never get rich working at a government archives I will certainly be able to make the bank happy when it's time to pay the mortgage again. The downside of this, of course, is that no matter where I am in the writing process I will have to get a decent sleep tonight and be able to make sense to my staff tomorrow morning at 7:30. Fortunately I like - no make that LOVE - my "pay-the-mortgage" job; but then not every part-time writer has the privilege of working where I do. Nina Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > Hi Nina, > > I guess an eternal question of writing is the art > v. business aspect. > > A benefit of success is that it allows you to > continue doing what you like to do. Did Emily > Dickinson ever have to worry where the next rent > payment was coming from? (Or, if she did, did she > have any reasonable hope of helping contribute to > it, by publishing her poetry or in any other way? > I don't know enough about her or the period she > was living in to make even an educated guess.) > > Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up > with the occasional sneer down the nose from a > certain small subset of our colleagues, who are of > the opinion that we should go out and get honest > jobs -- that the world in general and sf in > particular would be better off, and that we > ourselves would be behaving in a more honorable > manner. Most of the sneerers, I note, are not > among those who have to worry particularly about > paying the rent. > > Vonda > > On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500, "Nina M. Osier" > wrote: > > >Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had > >some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I > >never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who > still > >regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent > boys > >only. > > > >Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also > >saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field > of > >endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." > That's > >our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much > > >money did Emily Dickinson make...? > > > >Nina > > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda > Some official good news at > http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:28:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston In-Reply-To: <199711091032.SAA03632@public.zz.ha.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >unsubscibe feministsf C-ya! Take care. -Sean "America doesn't exist. I know...I lived there."--'Mon Oncle' ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:49:02 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) Vonda: I don't mean that you are out of line posting, I was just surprised that someone who can be considered "a celebrity" was talking to regular people. Maybe its this idea I have of the public shy Hollywood actor. DO you punch out photographers?(just joking) Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Vonda N. McIntyre Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:05 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) Hi Julien, On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 17:31:32 UT, Stephen Smith wrote: >HI Vonda: > I was rather shocked to find you posting on this site and must say I thought >it was a bit of a fluke. How so? Um... have I been out of line in posting? >In high school I was enamoured with "the Bride" for >some reason (movie with Sting and Jennifer Beals) and used your movie >adaptation for my forensics circuit. Do you mean, to read while you were travelling? I'm sorry to be so ignorant but I have no clue what a forensics circuit is. I talked to the editor after the book had been on the stands for a while and asked him how it was doing. "It was selling great," he said. "Until the movie came out." The original screenplay was a charming feminist remake of THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The movie managed to take out most of Eve's spark. Maybe it was just that the director was enamored of filming Jennifer Beals lying on a fainting couch, I dunno. > I am curious about this princess Leia bondage doll. If you could rant more >about that I would be interested. Funny that men tend to remember Leia in >that slave dress in the beginning of "Return of the Jedi" than anything else. >(did you see the episode of Friends in which Ross wanted Rachel to dress like >that? it was his sexual fantasy...yawn) Also where are all the females in >Lucas's creations? the only main female character is Leia and she becomes >more of a sexual pawn between Han and Luke...yes who will get the rich >princess? I love Lucas don't get me wrong...but >Julien After STAR WARS came out and the studio was sending out representatives to sf conventions to plug the second movie, one of the guys showing clips swore swore swore that there would be more women in subsequent movies. I think there were, what, two? in the background of EMPIRE. I nearly got a speeding ticket trying to get my Camaro to go into hyperspace on my way home from seeing STAR WARS the first time, but the lack of women characters, particularly in the background parts, was a serious and distressing flaw as far as I was concerned. For all I know, the Leia action figure is aimed at men rather than at kids. That would almost explain it. Vonda http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:00:10 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Janice" Yes that was precisely something I caught and thought...oh yeah for once we are really the bad guys. I thought the movie also showed the blindedness of war...when the reporter mentions that the bugs got stirred up from our intruision, Rico yells something like "a good bug is a dead bug." I'm sure some people may be able to add someother derogatory words in for bug to illustrate how racists or even bigots work. "Kill anything with four legs" was another one that made me think "Oh yeah...as long as it can be made different than us, we have no problem objectifing it so we can kill it." The first thing I said after that movie was hmmm that mouth of the brain sure looks like a vagina. (I thought I had seen "Naked Lunch" too many times and its many talking orifices) Also does anyone else pick up on the fact that in three different sci-fi movies the brainy being looks like an obese' blob? Think of DUne, (Jabba the hut?) and Starship Trooper. Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Janice E. Dawley Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 12:56 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers I too saw Starship Troopers this evening. Amazingly, I liked it, though perhaps my reaction has something to do with the beer I drank beforehand! I have to say that I thought women in general fared pretty well. There were plenty of them among the soldiers, and their presence seemed taken for granted. The group shower scene, in particular, surprised me -- there seemed to be no sexual innuendo attached to the men and women being naked together -- it was just normal. There were also quite a few women officers. However, there were some things that struck me as a little odd. As Allen mentioned, the brain bug's orifice seemed very like a vagina. Apparently there is something so disturbing about women's genitals that they're a natural model for evil alien nasty bits. (A recurrent visual element in the Alien movies' marketing is a glowing vertical slit.) And I thought Dizzy's last words, "At least I got to have you," were silly as all get out. She seemed obsessively fixated on Rico. But then Rico's choice to join the service was predicated on his obsessive fixation on Carmen... Basically, the movie seemed tongue in cheek. Very cynical. I had heard some talk of it beforehand (I have not read the book), particularly regarding the "fascism". Yes, the military did come across as driven by propaganda (I too thought of the "War In The Gulf" television footage), and there was one hint early in the film that perhaps the bugs were acting defensively... but that was disregarded by everyone. I was very amused towards the end when the previously hypothetical brain bug appeared, and you know what? It actually looked like a brain! And when it was captured, helpless, surrounded by enemy troops, the "psychic" guy (Doogie Howser, MD) placed his hand on its quivering noggin and pronounced, "It's AFRAID!" Deanna Troi, he's out for your job! I can only imagine that Verhoeven is laughing all the way to the bank. -- Janice ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead, OK Computer; Tricky, Pre-Millennium Tension "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:08:00 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers True true...after I wrote that I thought Hmm Girl means something much different than woman...but that's not even common parlance is it? "I'm your woman?" That sounds more like a come on or something. I think you were the one who commented on the clothing bit. Thank you for your reactions. I wrote that to see what sort of bees I could stir up...actually I think it was Brownmiller who wrote about the dynamics of women and rape. She states that the very nature of BIOLOGy can be blamed for how women are objectified ( i would say or made inferior in most cultures) Men have a "weapon" with which to instill fear, women are largely biologically powerless. I found that argument interesting esp in light of the Brian DePalma movie "Casulties of War." ANother critic I read said that men see nakedness as powerful and freeing...it allows them to escape cultural conventions. WOmen on the other hand understand the Nakedness metaphor much differently...they cannot see it as powerful, for nakedness leads to exposure and danger. That would naturally lead us to a discussion on women and the body...which I won't go intol I DO agree that women are objectified before they even get dressed, but what can be done in a society that objectifies you...then can you really dress the way you want...I don't mean to stir anyone up...and perhaps this is a circular argument. Well if women were not objectified...then women could dress...but in order to not be objectified...AHHHHH! Forget it...no one wins with this one. ANyone for going back to square one and convincing that little fish to not breathe air? ;{ Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Nina M. Osier Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 8:22 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers > Julien - The difference is that men do NOT say, "I'm your boy." Nina Osier > Finally (yes I am going to stop soon) I agree with Barbara > that those dying > words of Dis were INCREDIBLY stupid. I do disagree that the response > "I'm > your girl" sounds dumb. Men say "im your man," so what is the > difference? > Anyone else for comment? > Julien > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:21:22 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Allen: ********SPOILER RESPONSE******** Having read too much Freud, here was my take on Carmen's interaction with the smart bug...there was the female element yes...but that probe hmmm well it seems awfully phallic to me. As if the being had the anatomy of both genders...a kind of hermaphrodite if you will. Carmen castrates the being thus leaving only as female. As a female now...it is no longer threatening and can be destroyed by the macho men. Insects (notice the recurring fear element of insects in sci-fi) Aliens, Mimic, this movie, Naked lunch,...im drawing a blank now...but I think part of the fear of insects comes from the fact that they (how about even in Temple of Doom...with the cave filled with bugs which leave Kate Capshaw screaming) oh and there is Arachnaphobia...are so elusive...and everywhere. If you see one cockroach you're in trouble say the experts, but insects are then upon you before you know. ALso bugs multiply so rapidly, and because their life span is so short, they can adapt to anything humans throw at them. Remember the only thing left after a nuclear war, may very well be insects. (You know what I thought dumb about the scene where they were on Planet P or whatever that place was called? The insects were EVERYWHERE. THeir defences were far superior, they bounced back like nothing...and the guy says "Nuke em." I thought why are these people running around if they are using nukes...but I guess that might just be a saying huh? About the fort...I thought that fort was started by the Mormons? I thought they said that they were told not to build the fort, but they did and were slaughtered. It was called Fort smith or something like that. Maybe it was military after the fact, but I understood it to be a fort built by religious separatists, then after they were killed, the military used it because they didn't have time to build anything better. Am I wrong? Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Allen Briggs Sent: Saturday, November 08, 1997 10:20 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers I caught the late afternoon matinee of _Starship Troopers_ and found it to be rather cartoon-ish. It bears only a slight, superficial resemblance to the book (at least as I remember it). *sigh* If you do go, don't expect a movie version of the book. At all. I've heard it described as, "loosely based on the back cover of the Heinlein novel." There's spoiler stuff below because I just had to rant some... Anyway, I'm going to try and keep quiet about this from now on because I have a desire to rant about it... -allen PS. For newcomers on the list... I'm a 27 year-old computer programmer with a long-time love of Science Fiction, Feminism, and Gay (and Lesbian, and Bi- ;-) Rights. I'm just getting more into femsf as I find it (and write down recommendations that come across this list). I was raised as a liberal Quaker, but don't now claim any church affiliation beyond that. I tend to enjoy "hard-sf" and "eco-femi-utopias" as well as some cyberpunk and the occasional fantasy. Authors that I like are Heinlein (can't help it ;-), Asimov, Bear, Slonczewski, Piercy, Diane Duane, Sheri Tepper, O. Butler, Nicola Griffith (I haven't picked up Slow River yet, though)-:, Le Guin, Pat Murphy, and a host of others. I'm currently making my way through the "New Legends" anthology put together by Bear and Greenburg(?) that I picked up at ICFA last March. I was at ICFA because my wife was presenting a paper there. *** Spoiler stuff *** The eviscerations didn't bother me too much. Probably because Alien/s was worse and at least parts of this looked a bit like Nickelodeon "slime" or "goop" or whatever they call it. I didn't find the special effects looking that great. The bugs didn't move realistically to me, nor did the ships. Some of the props looked like painted cardboard and seemed as flimsy. The death and dismemberment came across as kind of comic-book-y. It didn't seem real to me at all. I was surprised that Diaz's character wasn't choking on the fake blood. Was it just me, or did the bugs look something like the aliens in Alien/s? Coincidence, or are these monsters some sort of an amalgamation of some common fears? Some of the plot changes were understandable. Some seemed completely gratuitous. The whole love interest thing seemed to fit both categories. The whole Nazi thing was annoying. The weaponry was ludicrous. The surrounding technology was unbelievable (yes, only a Hollywood set designer would build a fort with supporting structures on the outside and without being sure of the security of the foundation. I'm a pacifist, though, so what do I know? And the asteroids? The bugs are clear on the other side of the galaxy. That's 100,000 light-years. And they're propelling ROCKS from there? At sub-light speed? In response to human incursions into their space? And this is set in the 23rd century? That's a bit too much disbelief for me to suspend. Oh. On the point that Barbara, I think, mentioned. I think it's pretty clear that Carmen is not a virgin (unless I completely misread "my father won't be home tonight."), but I'm not sure if that affects your argument. I came away from this movie kind of like I came away from _First Knight_, actually. I felt like so much more could have been done and that the subject matter was completely misunderstood by everyone from the screenwriters to the producers and hence the audience. ...and was it just me, or did the mouth of the "brain" bug resemble a sinister view of a part of human anatomy just a little bit? [*] Anyway, I think I'm going to have to read the book again to see how skewed my memories are. I can't imagine what they'd do with _Tunnel In the Sky_... ALL that said, the only feminist aspect of the book that I recall was Heinlein's assertion that women have better reaction and decision-making times and therefore make better pilots than men. And that was barely implied by the movie, so I'm thinking that this is off-topic... [*] Frank and graphic description of what I mean that I will probably regret sending when the morning rolls around follows. Please delete now if you will take offense, and please don't try to psycho-analyze me based on this. The mouth of the "brain" bug looked to me like a vulva with the brain-sucking attachment. After it sucked the brains out of Carmen's partner and was oozing toward her, it looked like it was leaking semen. Reading (probably) waaaay too much into it, it took a woman (Carmen) to remove the brain-sucker so that the men (specifically, the ultra-man, drill-sarge-dude) could bring the bug in, but of course, Private Zim gets all the credit. Blech. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:29:02 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? THe problem with the Emily Dickenson analogy...is that in the 19th century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and one to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things. Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or some such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have an identity. WOmen were largely dependent upon the males. Think "Sense and Sensibility." If you didn't have a father, you were married off, or went to live with an uncle. Writing for many women was their way of expressing themselves in a confining patriarchal structure. (SO nothing has changed ;) Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Vonda N. McIntyre Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:05 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? Hi Nina, I guess an eternal question of writing is the art v. business aspect. A benefit of success is that it allows you to continue doing what you like to do. Did Emily Dickinson ever have to worry where the next rent payment was coming from? (Or, if she did, did she have any reasonable hope of helping contribute to it, by publishing her poetry or in any other way? I don't know enough about her or the period she was living in to make even an educated guess.) Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up with the occasional sneer down the nose from a certain small subset of our colleagues, who are of the opinion that we should go out and get honest jobs -- that the world in general and sf in particular would be better off, and that we ourselves would be behaving in a more honorable manner. Most of the sneerers, I note, are not among those who have to worry particularly about paying the rent. Vonda On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500, "Nina M. Osier" wrote: >Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had >some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I >never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who still >regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent boys >only. > >Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also >saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field of >endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." That's >our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much >money did Emily Dickinson make...? > >Nina http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:18:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On a whole, you are correct... however.... There were womyn, other than school mistresses that did have jobs. It was by no means a common practice, but womyn ran/owned shops, were seamstresses, cooks, maids, household servants, they worked in debtors prisons and orphanages, in short, womyn did indeed have jobs. If I remember the statistics right, something like 38 percent of womyn in 19th century England held jobs. The upper class (where Dickinson was), had a much lower percentage. Something around 6.5 percent, but still, it was possible. In the United States, the numbers were even higher. Emily Dickinson even held a job on her one for a while. If memory serves, she worked in a ladies dress shop. Sorry to burst your bubble. Becca Dreams Are Born In The Heart And Mind, And Only There Can They Ever Die remember Narnia, wonderland, MiddleEarth, and Never Never Land, and you shall truly never die. Peace Be With Thee and Blessed Be -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Smith To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? >THe problem with the Emily Dickenson analogy...is that in the 19th >century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and one >to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things. >Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or some >such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have >an identity. WOmen were largely dependent upon the males. Think "Sense and >Sensibility." If you didn't have a father, you were married off, or went to >live with an uncle. Writing for many women was their way of expressing >themselves in a confining patriarchal structure. (SO nothing has changed ;) >Julien > >---------- >From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf >of Vonda N. McIntyre >Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 3:05 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We > Know It? > >Hi Nina, > >I guess an eternal question of writing is the art >v. business aspect. > >A benefit of success is that it allows you to >continue doing what you like to do. Did Emily >Dickinson ever have to worry where the next rent >payment was coming from? (Or, if she did, did she >have any reasonable hope of helping contribute to >it, by publishing her poetry or in any other way? >I don't know enough about her or the period she >was living in to make even an educated guess.) > >Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up >with the occasional sneer down the nose from a >certain small subset of our colleagues, who are of >the opinion that we should go out and get honest >jobs -- that the world in general and sf in >particular would be better off, and that we >ourselves would be behaving in a more honorable >manner. Most of the sneerers, I note, are not >among those who have to worry particularly about >paying the rent. > >Vonda > >On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:30:12 -0500, "Nina M. Osier" > wrote: > >>Vonda, thank you for posting your "rant" after all! I do wish I had >>some ideas on how to change the larger world's perception of SF. I >>never cease to be amazed by the otherwise intelligent people who still >>regard speculative fiction of any type as something for adolescent boys >>only. >> >>Speaking as someone still in the process of breaking in, I am also >>saddened that the measure of success in this as in every other field of >>endeavor has to be "how much money have you made by doing it." That's >>our society, I accept it as it is; but it's still pitiful. How much >>money did Emily Dickinson make...? >> >>Nina > >http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda >Some official good news at >http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:04:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: netiquette reminder Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sorry to seem like a schoolmarm, but some recent messages prompt me to remind list members that when replying to someone's message it's not necessary to quote the original message in its entirety. This practice often increases the size of the message by two or three times, which wastes Internet bandwidth. Selectively quoting is much easier on the ol' pipeline. -- Janice ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead, OK Computer; Tricky, Pre-Millennium Tension "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 12:56:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephen Smith wrote: > THe problem with the Emily Dickenson analogy...is that in the 19th > century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and one > to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things. > Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or some > such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have > an identity. Women have always worked both inside and outside the home. When we think of women in a Jane Austen novel, we are thinking of white women of a particularly priveledged class. While a widespread lack of education, voting rights and access to the public sector of the culture was no picnic, work relegated to poorer women and men (washing and pressing other people's clothes, cleaning their houses and/or performing farm and factory work) could be deadly. Most women of color had even fewer choices and received lower pay. Amazingly, women were (and are!) writing and creating despite difficult conditions. Stories crafted and retold for generations, essays, novels, sculpture, poetry and gardens. . . I feel fortunate. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:23:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Movie Sorry I'm so late in getting back to you Julien. You've probably seen it already, but I'll give you my take. In a message dated 97-11-08 12:16:06 EST, Julien write: > Wow! that was a rant in the old style of rant...we have some commonalities:) I'm glad, I was a little worried that people would be offended. > Well my husband, who shares this email thing with me...hence the > schitzophrenic name...also wants to see Starship Troopers. THe FX look > brilliant, but I have been ambivalent about paying to see this. I like > Verhoeven's work...esp Robocop, so I decided to take the gamble. The major > drawback to this film seemed to me the casting. I hate it when they cast > third rate American beauty kings and queens...as if we can all relate to > that > vacuousness. Also one of the only actresses I recognized ruined > "Dragonheart." What is it with Hollywood casting an entire supporting cast > of > Brits and throwing in lead American actors who both cannot do an accent to > save their lives and who really cannot act but add the beauty factor. > (GRINDING OF TEETH) Yes, the I thought the FX were okay, although if there were too many bugs on the screen at once, they started to look fakey to me. I also liked Robocop, and my boyfriend spent a while extolling the good work Verhoeven has done in order further inspire me to go. I too thought that the big problem with the movie was the casting. The woman from "Dragonheart" also was in "Johnny Mnemonic", and that was another example of a great idea for a movie that was made with way too small a budget (Well, except for the part of the budget that paid for Keanu Reeves) and too much emphasis was placed on the FX and not enough on the rest of the story. I'm starting to wonder if I should just avoid movies with her in them, except that I kind of feel for her as an actress, since she seems to always be trying to find strong female roles, but they never quite turn out to be good *feminist* roles. But anyway, yes, the casting bothered me as well, since it was really obvious that they didn't spend as much on it as they should have. > I appreciate your comments on both the need for a site for those of > us > movie-philes, SF aficianados, and feminists. Hollywood ALWAYS has me on a > soapbox. I too own Faludi's backlash but haven't read it properly. I have > about 1000 other books competing for my attention. I took a film criticism > course that discussed the sci film, westerns and war films. WOmen are > generally either absent or killed off quickly (well let's not forget the > harlot with a heart of gold in westerns...ahhh!) That comment on women in > slasher films is also a good one. Sex always equals death. If you see two > going at it hot and heavy, you know a decapitation or slaughter isn't far > away. Speaking of horror/sf films (you'll take note my nickname is > grasshopper...aptly named as that describes my brain activity to a tee) > Last > night i finally watched "Videodrome" a movie from 1982. Directed by David > Cronenberg (a man I love but don't know why.) and starring James Woods and > Debbie Harry. He raises some really interesting ideas in that movie about > violence as portrayed on tv and how it desensitizes people to violence inthe > real world. I also found it interesting that he depicts sadio-masicistic ( > sp) > gender roles...the woman of course being on the masicistic end. Angela > Carter > wrote a book called "the Sadeain Woman" about the women in novels by the > Marquis de Sade. She examines the roles of women as both the victim and > victor. ANYWAY my point is...women tend to always be on the receiving end > of > pain and torture...and so many movies love to show women in this light. TO > me > this is just sick...and supports a rape culture. (or it feeds that culture > that perpetuates it. > well that's it for me...I'm very glad to hear from you Barbara...and > thanks > for the warning about starship troopers...but are the FX good? Speaking of > Insect films, did you and your boyfriend happen to see "Mimic? > > We didn't get out to see "Mimic" while it was in theaters - he was really interested but of all the bug movies - roaches I cannot stand, so he wasn't able to convince me while it was still in theaters. Did you and your husband see it? Was it good? Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:50:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gaya Bassham Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Julien said: > THe problem with the Emily Dickenson analogy...is that in the 19th > century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and one > to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things. > Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or some > such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have > an identity. WOmen were largely dependent upon the males. Think "Sense and > Sensibility." If you didn't have a father, you were married off, or went to > live with an uncle. Writing for many women was their way of expressing > themselves in a confining patriarchal structure. Well...yes and no. Emily Dickinson was, I think, an anomaly among nineteenth century women writers. Many women did write to express themselves, but for a lot of women it was their livelihood. (I think of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, a Christian fantasist who was fairly well known in the late nineteenth century, although hardly known at all now). They were writing to pay the bills and went about their writing in a very businesslike way. Phelps, for example, was adamant about *not* being "dependent upon the males" and has a number of female characters choose work of some sort over marriage. Anna Ella Carroll, a political pamphleteer in the pre-Civil War era, is another example. The real flaw with the Emily Dickinson analogy is that not only did she not have to write for her livelihood, she didn't seem to care whether she published or not. If I remember correctly--I haven't read about this in a while so I may be slightly off--she only tried to publish a handful of her hundreds of poems and she didn't try very hard to publish those. She wrote for a very select audience--a circle of family and close friends--and beyond that I don't think she cared very much what anyone else thought about her poetry. Not exactly a model for anyone who wants to be a published writer in today's world. -- Gayla P.S. I'm a relatively new subscriber to the list: an M.A. in history (emphasis on women's & political history) and now a computer programmer. I've been reading science fiction since I picked up a copy of the Foundation Trilogy when I was about thirteen. My current favorite are Octavia Butler, Sheri Tepper (just finished "Grass"), Ursula LeGuin, and Robert Silverberg. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:30:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <34653791.6538@Best.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Lindy S. L. Lovvik wrote: > > > Finally (yes I am going to stop soon) I agree with Barbara that > > those dying words of Dis were INCREDIBLY stupid. I do disagree > > that the response "I'm your girl" sounds dumb. Men say "im your > > man," so what is the difference? > > > I suspect the difference lies in the fact that men are adults and > girls are not. A man saying "I'm your boy" would sound equally > idiotic. > That was standard in Heinlein's day. Women who objectto his "misogyny" should really read more literature from his period. He was WAY ahead of his times. IN 1946 he had a short story about a woman on a space construction project fighting the men who wanted her off the project or kept safely inside the station. His women were physicists (Mary Lou Martin, mid-40s), cited equality statutes without being thought whiners (G. Brooks McNye,. 1946), starship pilots in the 50s - while Star Trek, 10 years later, announced that women could not be starship captains, Heinlein considered it a good thing. Meade Stone was an MD and Hazel Stone an engineer. That Hazel had given it up to write space operas was in line with some career paths I know of. And so on and so on. Sure. His attitude towards women has strong overtones of GI Generation thinking. He was born in 1907! But check out the original M*A*S*H for the character of Hot Lips Houlihan. Check out, if you can stand it, Philip Wylie's GENERATION OF VIPERS. Check out the 50s science fiction like THEY"D RATHER BE RIGHT in which women are seen as sour old prudes who are holding back bright young men, or as grasping little wanna-be Susie Homemakers who are trapping said bright young men into a stifling world of diapers and lawnmowing. Then re-read Heinlein with gratidude. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu Who found his world far more liberating than the one I was living in! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:54:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Bingo, Gayla! That WAS the analogy I was drawing, as it happens (I'm > the misbegotton soul who started this thread). My whole point was > that despite the fact that Emily Dickinson did not care whether or not > she was published, and was not dependent upon her writing for her > livelihood, she nevertheless produced work that's of timeless value. > I didn't mean this as any comment against writers who are able to earn > their living by their pens - I have nothing but respect for you, those > of you reading this for whom writing is your full time career and your > means of support. I only meant that when we measure a writer's work > solely by its dollars and cents "success," perhaps we sometimes miss > out on work that's produced by such as E.D. But what an interesting > discussion it's been.... Nina Osier > > > The real flaw with the Emily Dickinson analogy is that not only did > she not > have to write for her livelihood, she didn't seem to care whether she > published or not. If I remember correctly--I haven't read about this > in a > while so I may be slightly off--she only tried to publish a handful of > her > hundreds of poems and she didn't try very hard to publish those. She > wrote > for a very select audience--a circle of family and close friends--and > beyond > that I don't think she cared very much what anyone else thought about > her > poetry. Not exactly a model for anyone who wants to be a published > writer in > today's world. > > -- Gayla > > P.S. I'm a relatively new subscriber to the list: an M.A. in history > (emphasis on women's & political history) and now a computer > programmer. I've > been reading science fiction since I picked up a copy of the > Foundation > Trilogy when I was about thirteen. My current favorite are Octavia > Butler, > Sheri Tepper (just finished "Grass"), Ursula LeGuin, and Robert > Silverberg. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:04:12 -0500 Reply-To: Unca-lloyd@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: LLoyd McDaniel Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit YAAAAAAYYYYYY PAT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's so much easier to bash ol' RAH than to see that he genuinly LIKED women and placed them as equally as he could in the matrix of the society that he had to sell to..... and face it folks..... those of you who have been wondering if they could ever be writers and get paid for it.... FIRST you have to SELL the story to an editor who is watching the auduence for squirming....... LLoyd ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:30:56 -0500 Reply-To: Unca-lloyd@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: LLoyd McDaniel Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gaya used a name I was sure I'd have seen here before this....... Octavia Butler, what is the feeling on her work??? LLoyd ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:53:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii More Starship Troopers spoiler discussion... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having read too much Freud, here was my take on Carmen's interaction with the > smart bug... Well, that's actually the point I was working toward, I think, although I hadn't gotten to thinking of it as hermaphroditic. > Their defences were far > superior, they bounced back like nothing...and the guy says "Nuke em." Actually, I've started re-reading the book, and the "cap troopers" do carry and use small-yield nukes. The one's that Johnnie's using in the raid (on a non-Bug alien race) at the beginning of the novel are 2 kiloton (1/5 the size of the Hiroshima yield). In the book, the team of M.I. that Johnnie's in are equipped with armored suits that are kind of like walking, jumping, almost flying tanks. Johnnie's just been field-promoted and has been entrusted with 3 or 4 nukes to use wisely. In the book, there are no women in the M.I. At least, in boot camp (which is much more primitive and harsh than in the movie), the recruits make a point of not having any women around ANYwhere in the boot camp. That's something that the movie has improved on, perhaps. > About the fort...I thought that fort was started by the Mormons? I think that was a different fort. I got the impression that Fort John Smith (or whatever) was in a quarantine zone in the Utah desert--perhaps a zone set apart for "teams of government scientists" to study bugs outside of the lab. I am finding, on my re-read, that a lot of the propaganda aspects of the movie are present, but it's not clear if the author is satirizing it or not. From what (very) little I know of the man, it could be either. On the one hand, he does seem quite serious when he says (and I think Marina would agree ;-) that force has decisively settled many issues throughout history. On the other hand, I get the impression that he is critical of the militarized society and the military life. It's certainly hard to marry and have children as career military in this world... ;-) On the re-read, so far, though, I am getting the impression that it's a war story and is not meant to be a cautionary tale at all, but is, indeed, meant to glorify military service. One thing that is consistent with the book is the Rodger Young (the dropship/troop ship). The last page of the novel gives us a historical note about Rodger Young. He was apparently a 25 year-old private who was (post-humously) awarded a Medal of Honor for action in WWII (single-handedly destroying an enemy pillbox that had his platoon pinned down--he was wounded three times while en route and died from the third wounding). Anyway, to sum up--the book doesn't have much of a feminist aspect (aside from the matter of the pilots), but the movie does improve on the book. Even Johnnie's mother is a stronger character in the movie. Actually, though, come to think of it, some might say that Carmen is weaker in the movie. In the book, "Carmen wasn't my girl--she wasn't anybody's girl; she never made two dates in a row with the same boy and treated all of us with equal sweetness and rather impersonally." Here's a little bit on the pilots from the first chapter of the book: Then the ship's breaking program hit us and I stopped shaking. Eight gees, I would say, or maybe ten. When a female pilot handles a ship, there is nothing comfortable about it; you're going to have bruises every place you're strapped. Yes, yes, I know they make better pilots than men do; their reactions are faster, and they can tolerate more gee. They get in faster, get out faster, and thereby improve everybody's chances, yours as well as theirs. But that still doesn't make it fun to be slammed against your spine at ten times your proper weight. I'll be quiet now... ;-) -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:59:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers In-Reply-To: <346a6d87.458394799@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To respond to several questions in the current thread: Barbara: Thanks for your explanation . . . (although I really was just playing Devil's Advocate in mine; this is something I like to do, so please don't take it too personally -- it's all in the spirit of intellectual debate). No, I haven't seen the movie yet -- tonight we're going to go see "Boogie Nights" instead, which should be equally interesting (LOL!) -- but I read a fascinating review by someone who said that the problem with the film is that in fact it doesn't have the courage of the book's fascist convictions, that the book focussed on the brutality of the military training rather than showing it as a co-ed summer camp, and that by doing so it made disturbing but undismissable points about the efficacy of certain kinds of cruelty. Certainly the book (which I haven't read myself, although I intend to) bothered people within the field enough to produce several noteworthy responses, including Haldeman's "The Forever War" and Card's "Ender's Game." The point of this review, and I'm sorry that I've forgotten where it appeared, was that by toning *down* its material, the film has obviated the possibility for that kind of continuing dialog; it's content to gross people out without making them think. Stephen: Yes, Matthew Fox *was* kicked out of the Catholic Church (he's now an Episcopal priest), probably because he's pro-feminist, pro-gay, anti-hierarchy, and a number of other things that don't sit too well with Rome. As for dress and feminism: yes, it *is* an issue, and no, it shouldn't be. I still can't walk out my front door in skimpy clothing without taking my life in my hands, although, as another poster commented, men can; but one of the goals of my feminism, at least, is to try to create a world where I *can* if I want to. This brings me to your question, "Is dress responsible for seeing women as objects." My answer is no, the *beholder* is responsible for his or her interpretation of what someone is wearing. The problem is that in this culture, we've been trained to believe that certain kinds of clothing make reliable statements about the moral fiber of the person underneath them. I consider that assumption profoundly suspect. I'm the same person whether I'm wearing body armor or a g-string, and I hope to live to see a world where other people recognize that fact. Which brings me to Vonda: yes, you're right, the Leia action figure is static . . . so the question becomes, what situation do we imagine her in when we see her in that outfit? When I see that outfit I remember her strangling the blobby guy, but somebody else might remember her pulling helplessly against the collar she wears earlier in the film, and someone who hadn't even seen the film might conjure up all kinds of pornographic scenarios, based on the assumption that women who wear skimpy outfits are automatically sex objects. I suspect that still pornographic images (rather than written porn or films) function largely as Rorschach tests: you and Catherine MacKinnon and I will look at the same picture and invent three completely different narratives to frame it. Have you read Russ' wonderful essay on "Pornography and the Doubleness of Sex for Women"? She says that sex is inescapably double, both positive and negative, for every woman in this culture, and that depending on where your experiences fall along that spectrum at any one time, you'll respond to the same images in very different ways. Now, whenever I see a static sexual image of a woman, I try to imagine a variety of narratives for it: ones in which she's powerful, enjoying herself, making a living and putting her kids through school, etc., and ones in which she's feeling lousy, being exploited, and so forth. Maybe this, maybe that: no way to know without talking to the model, and as for the imaginary character the model is supposed to represent, you can write any story for her you choose. So let's write stories in which women are powerful and smart whatever they're wearing, shall we? Subvert, subvert! ;) Cheers, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:53:55 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > After STAR WARS came out and the studio was > sending out representatives to sf conventions to > plug the second movie, one of the guys showing > clips swore swore swore that there would be more > women in subsequent movies. I think there were, > what, two? in the background of EMPIRE. I think they were refering to Mon Mothma (the Rebel leader in JEDI). As you know, women have shown up even more in the novels, but even then they're in bit roles just don't impact the storyline...with the exception of _The Crystal Star_ and Hambly's books (though Anderson is trying). Even the next generation of stars for the prequels only have one woman (who will survive the first movie, at least): Natalie Portman (the "Young Queen" and the twins' mother) > For all I know, the Leia action figure is aimed at > men rather than at kids. That would almost explain > it. It's aimed at men. I, as a completist, have always wanted them to that action figure and always wondered why they left it out in 1983, just as I wondered why there was no Tarkin, Owen or Beru, or Rebel Trooper. But I digress. However, I first saw JEDI at 10...I really had no interest in women at the time and I could have cared less what Leia was in. It wasn't until (as sad as this may seem) the FRIENDS episode that was mentioned that I realized the sex appeal of the costume. All I had ever seen was Leia being degraded by Jabba. What (he asked rhetorically of the Leia-lusters out there) is so attractive about that? Maybe I'm still thinking of it as a 10-year-old... I find Kenner's "Princess Leia Collection" intrguing...regular (3 3/4 inch) action figures with cloth clothing instead of the plastic and rubber that are found on the regular figures. Kenner has basically stated that this collection is being aimed directly at girls...I'm trying to figure out whether it will work... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:00:00 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Julien, No, I just dive under the nearest table; I hate to have my picture taken. Don't think of myself as a celebrity -- several folks post to this list who are a lot better known than I am. Besides, there's no better way to get handed one's ego on a plate than to expect folks to recognize one's name. Best, Vonda On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:49:02 UT, Stephen Smith wrote: >Vonda: >I don't mean that you are out of line posting, I was just surprised that >someone who can be considered "a celebrity" was talking to regular people. >Maybe its this idea I have of the public shy Hollywood actor. DO you punch out >photographers?(just joking) > Julien > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:00:16 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? In-Reply-To: <34686a0f.457506220@mail.oz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I must have been creating aliens last night... On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:05:56 GMT, "Vonda N. McIntyre" wrote: >... >Those of us who write tie-in novels have to put up >with the occasional sneer down the nose http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:01:11 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? In-Reply-To: <01bced44$3a9a96e0$72745181@raven.tcs.tulane.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Becca, No bubble there to burst... As I said, my knowledge of the period is so limited that I'm likely to be wrong even in the assumptions on which my question (not assertion) was based. Best, Vonda On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:18:15 -0600, Becca Stoler wrote: >On a whole, you are correct... however.... There were womyn, other than >school mistresses that did have jobs. It was by no means a common practice, >... >higher. Emily Dickinson even held a job on her one for a while. If memory >serves, she worked in a ladies dress shop. Sorry to burst your bubble. > >Becca > ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:01:19 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: 7th Annual Cultural Studies Symposium, Religion, Leia, Starship , Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda- Oops...didn't catch this: > What I am saying is, why is the slave outfit the > one they picked to sell her in? Why not the > elegant senator's robes, or the flying motorcycle > flight suit? Why not several outfits? (Then they > could charge more.) > > Maybe they've done all those, but others aren't > mentioned in the newsletter. There's no Luke > covered with garbage action figure or Han Solo > trapped in black plastic action figure. No, there's no Luke in garbage...yet. :) But there is a Han in Carbonite, and there are 4 Leias thus far: white-robed Leia (a *horrible* sculpt that supposedly had Carrie Fisher ready to strangle Lucasfilm and Kenner), Leia as Boushh, Leia on the speeder bike, and the Leia of the current discussion. I'm afraid the newsletter you have is focusing on (an marketing upon) exactly what you've mentioned: men want the Leia-in-bondage-outfit. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:10:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Pat: Yes, you're right: it's all a matter of context. I loved Heinlein when I was a kid, although when I was sixteen (and not even a feminist yet!) I threw "Farnham's Freehold" across the room because I couldn't stand how it talked about women. There are really two issues here: 1) how does the author present women vis-a-vis the other predominant images in his or her culture, and 2) what sources of feminist strength can a given woman find in a given text, regardless of whether it's intended to be feminist, or considered such by people who call themselves feminists? There was a feminist backlash against Nancy Drew for a while: she isn't really a strong female character, she always winds up getting rescued by Ned, etc., etc. For some people that may be true. On the other hand, there's a footnote in Susan Griffin's "Silence and Pornography" about a little girl -- this is a true story -- who was kidnapped and thrown into the trunk of a car. She managed to pick the lock (from the inside, in the dark!) and escape when her capturer stopped at a gas station. When the police asked her how she had accomplished this brave and technically difficult feat, she said, "I asked myself what Nancy Drew would have done in the same situation." LOL! That kid didn't need no stinking Ned! See my earlier response to Vonda about pornographic images: here, too, I suspect that our expectations will shape what we find. Resourceful female readers can draw images of strength from sources other female readers consider anathema. My motto is, "If it works, use it." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:12:38 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Movie Barbara: Yes I liked Mimic and so did he. I was kind of surprised because I thought "Oh no not MIra SOrvino. ( I disliked that Woody Allen movie that she won her oscar for immensily!) The idea was interesting. However, the plot often falls into what you would expect, but she played a fairly strong female lead. (actually Sorvino is quite an intelligent person. She did her M.A. at Harvard or Yale or one of those in Chinese I think.) That actress...yes I avoided Johnny mneumonic like the plague. Well now wait that isn't exactly true...I saw the first part and shut it off immediately. I really cannot understand WHY casting directors continue to hire Keanu "mr monotone" Reeves. He is horrible and has ruined so many potentially good films. Now this is just me, but I'm worried about "Alien the Resurrection." I don't like Winona Ryder either and I'm afraid she'll drag it down. The director is pretty amazing, for what I can tell... I have made it a habit to avoid films of people that I don't like or don't respect as a performer. That actress does seem to be trying, but maybe she is choosing the wrong scripts. I don't know. Thanks for writing back. IF there are any other sf/horror movies that you care to discuss...i'm all eyes. JULIEN PS: I wandered into two toy shops today to check out the action figures for kids. I couldn't find one miniature of Princess Leia in or out of bondage. I also found it depressing that the Starship Trooper action figures have arrived and only Carmen has a figurine! (WHERE IS DIS?) Also not only was there only the one doll available, she wasn't in stock. What does this say? I was also rifling through the reduced stuff, and lo and behold the only ones in that bin were X-men characters. I guess Spawn must have a female character...as she has an action figurine. Has anyone seen Spawn by the way? ANyone interested in SF comics? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:17:44 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > That was standard in Heinlein's day. Women who objectto his > "misogyny" should really read more literature from his period. He was WAY > ahead of his times. Grand defense for Heinlein. What's Verhoven's excuse? It's obvious the man uses women as objects. We saw it in TOTAL RECALL with the three-breasted hooker, we saw it in SHOWGIRLS and BASIC INSTINCT. The man has an eye for action - I'll readily agree to that. But, given the chance to update Heinlein to the nineties, he drops it and misses his chance. Might be the reason why I haven't seen a full one of his movies since TOTAL RECALL... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:34:29 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Just wanted to put my two cents in that I agree with Pat Matthews about Heinlein. Yes, he wasn't exactly a feminist, but he seemed to think he was and tried really hard at it... Heck, if you browse the sf and mainstream written today you are likely to find many books that make Heinlein look like a saint (along with those that make him truly outdated). My question to the server is, does anybody know anything about his wife? I have heard rumors that she was quite brilliant, which may have had something to do with his incorporation of "strong" (again, look at the decades) females. I haven't seen anything written about her, though. Thanks, Bonnie PS: I know Laura mentioned something recently about intros. I never introduced myself to the list, although I have been a lurker for many months and an occasional poster (alas, the volume sometimes gets too great and I hit the delete key on everyone...) I am a 27 yo PhD candidate in electrical engineering. My area is microelectromechanical systems (most sf buffs are familiar with the field; if not, think micromotors and nanites, then think of reality :) ) I love science, and I love science fiction. I also am a take-no-prisoners feminist (translation: I think men and women should all be treated fairly... what a concept...). I really, really love feminist science fiction. I like the list because you all point me to the best books out there repeatably :) Plus, it really is nice to know there are other people with my interests out there, and hear what they think. Well, that's my brief intro; thought I'd jump on the bandwagon (all the cool kids are doing it...) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:13:45 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Pat Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 6:30 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers Liddy: Thanks for the info on Heinlein...I know absolutely NOTHING about him. I must comment though on this Star Trek jab. I have watched several documentaries about Mr Roddenberry and though I don't think he was any kind of saint, he did MAKE ATTEMPTS to push the envelope for women. If Majel Barrett can be trusted (the widow Roddenberry) she says that Roddenberry wanted number one to be a woman. IN fact the pilot show pitched to the networks HAS her as number one (majel barrett that is). However that wonderful network mentality (the patriarchy of the television waves) felt that she shouldn't be in this position. Furthermore they felt that the SPock character was a little too evil, with his pointed ears and funny eyebrows. THese two they definately didn't want. SO I assume under pressures, he changed those two things and I think the woman became a kind of air hostess and nurse's aide. I think a lot of the power behind Star Trek comes from the fans. Think about the writing campaign conducted to renew the cancelled Star Trek. ALso think about the pressures on Voyager against Janeway. Many men do not like her, and openly tear her apart. Fans can determine the fate of a show and influence writers in script decisions. (also remember the fan base behind "beauty and the beast." ) I myself like Star Trek and what it tries to accomplish. I feel that Jadzia Dax, Major Kira, the departed Tasha Yar, Janeway, Kes, Beverly Crusher, Torres, Kes and yes even annoying Troi ( I do not like her at all!) attempt to demonstrate strength, empathy, wisdom, and intelligence. They come across to me as not only capable women but women that I myself admire. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:22:23 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Becca Stoler Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 1:18 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? On a whole, you are correct... however.... There were womyn, other than school mistresses that did have jobs. It was by no means a common practice, but womyn ran/owned shops, were seamstresses, cooks, maids, household servants, they worked in debtors prisons and orphanages, in short, womyn did indeed have jobs. Emily Dickinson even held a job on her one for a while. If memory serves, she worked in a ladies dress shop. Sorry to burst your bubble. No bubble burst here. Look at what I said below...you have confirmed my point... well maybe schoolmistress or some >such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have >an identity. WOmen may have been able to work, but they still did what were traditionally "women's work" I'm not a dog with a bone...really. I do see your point...though and will concede on this discussion. One question I have though, didn't a few women write under male names? I think (if E.m.Forster can be trusted) that women had to stick to writing things like romances (remember Miss Lavish) or adventure stories with a romantic element to them? Many other writers who wanted to write something outside that league took male pseudonymes...like George Sand and George Eliot. Julien ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:29:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tressa Klein Subject: (no subject) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit unsubscibe feministsf Tress Klein ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:54:29 -0800 Reply-To: Michelle Wolfe Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Wolfe Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Geoffrey D. Sperl To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, November 09, 1997 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers > >Grand defense for Heinlein. What's Verhoven's excuse? It's obvious the >man uses women as objects. We saw it in TOTAL RECALL with the >three-breasted hooker, we saw it in SHOWGIRLS and BASIC INSTINCT. >- Geoffrey Uh, Geoffrey, I can't swear to this, but I think that Verhoeven, director of Robocop, Total Recall, etc... is a different guy than the maker of Showgirls, et al. Similar name, I know, but I really think they are two different people (and I suspect they demonstrate two different attitudes toward women in their films...) Does anyone know for sure if they are different guys/same guy? Shelley ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:01:53 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Allen: Thanks for the information from the book. I'm glad to see that at least the females fare better in the movie. Verhoeven apparently consults with his wife before he develops a script. In fact HIS WIFE encouraged him to film that awful "showgirls" that I was sure would topple him forever at the box office. I watched on tv tonight that "Starship Troopers" is currently the number one box office hit, with "Bean" trailing behind. The only thing that I know about Heinlein is that he wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land." I believe that the book was banned or under heavy controversy for awhile, and was just reissued several years back. DO you know anything about this book? Just curious. Julien ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:51:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: _Sarah Canary_ sort of SPOILER MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Anybody going to leap in on Joel's question about Sarah Canary? Joel, I've heard it called a first contact story. Which makes it possible to see her dress in a whole new light. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:17:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gaya Bassham Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Comments: To: Michelle.Wolfe@cgu.edu The same Verhoeven made both Showgirls and Total Recall. -- Gayla ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 05:21:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:01 10-11-97 UT, Stephen Smith wrote: > The only thing that I know about Heinlein is that he wrote "Stranger in a >Strange Land." I believe that the book was banned or under heavy controversy >for awhile, and was just reissued several years back. DO you know anything >about this book? Just curious. >Julien > Robert Heinlein was probably a conservative, Ayn Rand Libertarian. The anti-gun control and various right wing types quote him frequently. I'm not into *any* politics so this is just a point of interest. Do a search from www.excite.com on "Robert Heinlein Libertarian" to display several references that seem to confirm that association. He's definitely their poster child. Pity. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:40:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Star Trek Women (was Re: Starship Troopers) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Just as a side-note. TV Guide has two "Collectors' Covers" this week. One with Dax, and another with the Borg person on Voyager (I think--didn't look too closely, but I didn't recognize her and I don't get Voyager locally unless I bug someone who has a DSS). I usually watch under 1hr of TV/week, but I picked up one of the guides to see what they have to say. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:17:29 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <9711092334.AA26823@madrone.ece.ucdavis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 16:34 11/9/97 -0700, you wrote: > Just wanted to put my two cents in that I agree with Pat Matthews >about Heinlein. Yes, he wasn't exactly a feminist, but he seemed to >think he was and tried really hard at it... Heck, if you browse the >sf and mainstream written today you are likely to find many books >that make Heinlein look like a saint (along with those that make him >truly outdated). > > My question to the server is, does anybody know anything about >his wife? I have heard rumors that she was quite brilliant, which >may have had something to do with his incorporation of "strong" >(again, look at the decades) females. I haven't seen anything written >about her, though. > >Thanks, >Bonnie > Heinlein's wife is very active in maintaining and protecting his works -- she controls what gets reprinted -- and his files. They worked as a team while he was alive, traveled together, etc. She has a lot of business savvy (he was no slouch, either), and has always protected his interests. Vigorously. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:22:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Heinlein/Stranger/Starship (was Re: Starship Troopers) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Thanks for the information from the book. You're quite welcome. I will post more after I finish it if my opinions or impressions change... ;-) The more I read, the less interesting it is in the context of feministsf. It's one of the few Heinlein novels that has essentially zero female presence. > The only thing that I know about Heinlein is that he wrote "Stranger in a > Strange Land." I believe that the book was banned or under heavy controversy > for awhile, and was just reissued several years back. DO you know anything > about this book? Just curious. Yeah. A little. I haven't read it in years, but I'll try to tell you a bit about it. It's got more women in it, and although they all seem to be waiting on the men in one way or another, several of them are very strong characters. Actually, thinking about it, that does seem to be kind of an underlying truth. I am having trouble thinking of an woman in Heinlein's work who is not a kind of satellite around a man. Hazel Stone comes pretty close, I suppose, and "Mama" Maureen. If you look at the development of feminism in science fiction as a two-stage process--the first developing strong female characters and the second letting them be independent from the strong male characters--Heinlein didn't venture much past the first. Of course, as has been pointed out on this list in the past, there were more forward-looking writers before, during, and (of course ;-) after the time that Heinlein was writing. On the other hand, he was far more popular and mainstream than they. The book was banned (it amazes me what has been banned, but this one is kind of understandable--not that I agree with banning books, but I understand the motivations). There is the notion of cannabalism (kind of--after one's death, one's friends eat one's body). There is also rather free sex, if I remember right. The book introduced the word "grok" into the SF vocabulary along with "I am only an egg." The story is about a human raised by Martians and then re-introduced to Earth (American) society. Heinlein liked Kipling a lot. :-) After Stranger came out, it really clicked for a LOT of people. There was a definite kind of religious reaction to it, apparently, and Heinlein started getting a lot of "wierdo" visitors who saw him as a kind of prophet. The book didn't have that kind of effect on me. I liked the first third or half of it and thought that it went downhill when the main character gets a religious movement going (promoting essentially Martian religion)... It does poke fun at consumer religion (for lack of a better term), and that seems to resonate with some of the modern "religious" organizations. That actually shows up in a couple of his other works and I was reminded of this general theme when reading Grass and looking at the church that Tepper has in there. I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere, too. _Grumbles from the Grave_ is an interesting read if you have any interest in how Heinlein saw some of his own work and if you are interested in some of the interactions between him and his editors (usually through his agent). _Grumbles_ is a collection of letters and some commentary gathered by Virginia Heinlein after his death. I don't know anything about either of his wives, but I do wonder sometimes... ;-) Pax, -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 07:25:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <9711092334.AA26823@madrone.ece.ucdavis.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Bonnie Gray wrote: > My question to the server is, does anybody know anything about > his wife? I have heard rumors that she was quite brilliant, which > may have had something to do with his incorporation of "strong" > (again, look at the decades) females. I haven't seen anything written > about her, though. > May I pass this on to Jean Lamb? She's acquainted with Virginia Heinlein. As I understand it, she's the prototype for a lot of his redheaded hell-on-wheels women a la Maureen O'Hara in her many roles, and Hot Lips Houlihan after Colonel Potter came on board. (digression - once Margaret had a commander she could respect, she stopped trying to run the MASH unit all by herself, through the only tool she could command, and reverted to her better self. And how did COlonel Blake EVER survive WWII?) Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:38:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: To Vonda ---------- Don't think of myself as a celebrity -- several folks post to this list who are a lot better known than I am. Besides, there's no better way to get handed one's ego on a plate than to expect folks to recognize one's name. ---------- Goodness! Well, I, for one, am very excited to have you here posting. Thank you for the "rant" about tie-ins. I found it to be an excellent explanation of the situation in current SF writing. This was particularly revelatory to me: (pardon me if I'm making up words again) ---------- One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for the reader of mainstream sf is that they support quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who would find it difficult to subsist on the advances for their original novels. ---------- Rhian Merris rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:14:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tress Klein Subject: Re: Getting off list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E7A9B1AFC643DF2457A8E2C6" --------------E7A9B1AFC643DF2457A8E2C6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can someone please help me get off list. I have tried. There is too much mail coming in and I ddo not have the time with all my work. I am being overwelmed. I have triedd everything. Your help is appreciated. Tressk Rhian Merris wrote: > ---------- > Don't think of myself as a celebrity -- several > folks post to this list who are a lot better known > than I am. Besides, there's no better way to get > handed one's ego on a plate than to expect folks > to recognize one's name. > ---------- > > Goodness! Well, I, for one, am very excited to have you here posting. > > Thank you for the "rant" about tie-ins. I found it to be an excellent > explanation of the situation in current SF writing. This was > particularly revelatory to me: (pardon me if I'm making up words again) > > ---------- > One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for > the reader of mainstream sf is that they support > quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who > would find it difficult to subsist on the advances > for their original novels. > ---------- > > Rhian Merris > rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:17:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: Star Trek Women (was Re: Starship Troopers) In-Reply-To: <19971110084057.09907@puma.macbsd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I was planning on posting something on this, but hadn't gotten around to it. TV Guide has really just stepped on my nerves! Dax and Seven-of-Nine have been singled out as the new "women of Star Trek", women who demand to be taken seriously, who can hold their own, who aren't caregivers and nurturers, but warriors and scientists and kick-a#@ babes. Which is all true, and great even, except that Dax and Seven are both not entirely themselves... They have both been altered in some way to make them the super-folks that they are. Kira (on DS9) and Bellana (V) and the Captain (who all of a sudden is saying she's a *long-time* feminist, while I *distinctly * remember an I'm not a feminist, but... being attributed to her when Voyager debuted--feminism must be getting trendy again!) are all 100% themselves (shying away from *natural*, can't say *human* either, but I hope you know what I mean). So, the question is, why are Cyborgs and hybrids so sexy? Plain old fully B'joran warrior mothers don't cut it anymore? Half Klingon warrior engineers? And, which is probably a good thing, there is no mentionat all of Kes, that infantalized pouty caregiving mixture of Troi and Crusher and any nurse on the original series, who has so sadly left Voyager... I guess I'm waxing inarticulate, but I'm kind of annoyed right now. What a way to start a Monday... At 08:40 AM 11/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Just as a side-note. TV Guide has two "Collectors' Covers" this >week. One with Dax, and another with the Borg person on Voyager (I >think--didn't look too closely, but I didn't recognize her and I >don't get Voyager locally unless I bug someone who has a DSS). > >I usually watch under 1hr of TV/week, but I picked up one of the >guides to see what they have to say. > >-allen > >-- > Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com > > Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:59:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971110052117.00e77d70@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:21 11/10/97 -0800, you wrote: >At 05:01 10-11-97 UT, Stephen Smith wrote: >> The only thing that I know about Heinlein is that he wrote >>"Stranger in a Strange Land." I believe that the book was banned or >>under heavy controversy for awhile, and was just reissued several years >>back. DO you know anything about this book? Just curious. >>Julien >> _Stranger in a Strange Land_ raised some eyebrows when first printed, but the big controversy accumulated about the Manson group after their killing spree -- turned out that they used the book as a kind of bible. Some opined then that Heinlein should never have written it, though it seems like a bad idea to hold an author responsible for the misuse of his text by an impressionable group led by a nut case. Nothing in _Stranger_ could reasonably be read as an incitement to casual murder, though there is a lot of rather gratuitous sex in it. >Robert Heinlein was probably a conservative, Ayn Rand Libertarian. The >anti-gun control and various right wing types quote him frequently. I'm not >into *any* politics so this is just a point of interest. Do a search from >www.excite.com on "Robert Heinlein Libertarian" to display several >references that seem to confirm that association. He's definitely their >poster child. Pity. > >Cary >~~~~~~~~ >http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) >http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) >http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) >My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and >www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) > > Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:09:00 -0500 Reply-To: deluca@pcrm.org Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathy Deluca Subject: Re: Star Trek Women MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would first like to say that I have been a Star Trek fan for years, and I love the issues that Star Trek has been willing to explore (gender, human rights, sexuality, etc.) But... While the current TV Guide article featuring Dax and Seven of Nine is intended to applaud Star Trek for finally featuring strong women, it actually masks the objectification of these women and the embodiment of unrealistic standards of beauty. It is no coincidence that these very popular characters are white, young, tall, and extremely thin. So while it is wonderful that Star Trek has several strong female characters, it is not surprising that they don't look like you and me. In this respect, Star Trek is no different than any other current tv program in which the female characters look like they haven't eaten in weeks. In particular, Seven of Nine, Voyager's newest character, is clothed in the tightest full-body suit that I've ever seen - not to mention the 4 inch heels. Not exactly my picture of a strong, liberated woman. Even when she was a Borg, her costume made sure to emphasize her large breasts and buttocks. And the female Borg in the Star Trek movie "First Contact" was also heavily sexualized. I haven't noticed any "buff" male Borg characters to date. I encourage everyone to write Paramount and share your feelings about the portrayal of the female characters on Voyager and all of the Star Trek series. The address is: Paramount Television 5555 Melrose Avenue Hollywood, CA 90025 much peace, cathy --------------------------- Cathy DeLuca deluca@pcrm.org washington, dc ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:15:08 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I myself like Star Trek and what it tries to accomplish. I feel >that Jadzia Dax, Major Kira, the departed Tasha Yar, Janeway, Kes, >Beverly Crusher, Torres, Kes and yes even annoying Troi ( I do not like >her at all!) attempt to demonstrate strength, empathy, wisdom, and >intelligence. They come across to me as not only capable women but women >that I myself admire. Agreed. If ever there was a strong star-trek character to look up to, she would be Tasha Yar, I mean the womyn died twice, was security chief of the flag-ship, kept Worf under control, and almost escaped from a Romulan prison camp. (if it wasn't for her brainwashed daughter... she would have) Need I remind you, she also went back in time to win a war! Talk about guts! Becca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:22:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Star Trek Women (was Re: Starship Troopers) In-Reply-To: <3.0.4.32.19971110101746.006e8870@mailbox.syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:17 10-11-97 -0500, you wrote: >I was planning on posting something on this, but hadn't gotten around to it. >TV Guide has really just stepped on my nerves! Dax and Seven-of-Nine have >been singled out as the new "women of Star Trek", women who demand to be >taken seriously, who can hold their own, who aren't caregivers and nurturers, >but warriors and scientists and kick-a#@ babes. Which is all true, and great >even, except that Dax and Seven are both not entirely themselves... They >have both been altered in some way to make them the super-folks that they >are. So, the question is, why are Cyborgs and hybrids so sexy? Plain old >fully B'joran warrior mothers don't cut it anymore? Half Klingon warrior >engineers? You expected a fully human woman to be an engineer on Star Trek? Dream on. Dax was the worst example that TVGuide could have given. I like her but that is probably just visceral and shallow of me. However, she is male in gender, or perhaps 'mental sex' is a better phrase. She is very nearly a satire. Captain Sisko still addresses her as "Old Man" to remind us of her nature. Is the message that a woman has to be guided by an internal and worldly wise male to be truly strong? Or is she a parody, mixed message, or simply a badly-conceived character? B'Lanna(sp?) Torres was the center of a ridiculous story in which the nasty species that harvested organs for their survival performed genetic experiments on her. When their experiments caused her to split into two separate organisms (please standby for suspension of disbelief here), her genes also manufactured Klingon warrior clothing for her. Amazing! I would not have guessed that humanoid clothing grew genetically, but hey! what do I know? The point of that episode was muddled though I think it did not show B'Lanna as inherently strong. Her human side was simpering. If anyone remembers that episode, please comment. I thought it was one of ST's dumbest ever, right down there with the Binar species walking around with RAM buffers (ST:TNG) and other silliness. Sorry I'm a tech-writer for a software company. I notice stuff like that--it's an occupational hazard. TVGuide quotes the nearly-Supermodel Seven of Nine as saying that it was her idea to wear four-inch heels. I didn't understand her stated reason for that though it seemed somehow fashion-related. It went right by me. What's next in the future? Alien races with micro-miniskirts and beehive hairdo's who are hopelessly stupid? Oops, I forgot. The original ST already did that. The women had to put on a helmet of knowledge and then wire a male brain (courtesy of Spock) to their computer in order to survive. Well, there you go. Dax, B'lanna, and Seven of Nine: ST's model of the woman of the future. ST has progressed from the 60's? Beyond substituting pants for minis, I'd say not in essence. Kira, on the other hand, is real to me. She is strong, spiritual, a complete person. My opinion only. I'm new to this list so if this is old territory, please forgive me. Thanks :-) Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:20:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >No bubble burst here. Look at what I said below...you have confirmed my >point... well maybe schoolmistress or some such designated job...as long > as it conformed to womens work) let alone have an identity. > WOmen may have been able to work, but they still did what were traditionally >"women's work" > I'm not a dog with a bone...really. > >I do see your point...though and will concede on this discussion. One >question I have though, didn't a few women write under male names? I think >(if E.m.Forster can be trusted) that women had to stick to writing things like >romances (remember Miss Lavish) or adventure stories with a romantic element >to them? Many other writers who wanted to write something outside that league >took male pseudonymes...like George Sand and George Eliot. >Julien > Oh, you are absolutely correct; womyn did do "womyn's work", but they did support their families by doing the best they could in a bad situation. Feminism is not a new thing, it is simply that when a lady is busy trying to keep a job, feed her family, and raise children, she does not have time to march, and protest. The suffragists were the womyn of the upper class, they were wealthy womyn with time on their hands. This does not mean that the working womyn did not want the right to vote, they were just to busy earning 13 cents on the dollar to feed their families with. Many female writers did take on male pseudonyms. They made more money this way, and had a greater chance of being published. I was simply saying that womyn could and often did work, not by choice, but by necessity. Becca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:29:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: yet another thread MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01BCEDC3.7E32DF00" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01BCEDC3.7E32DF00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know that now is probably not the best time to start a thread, but I = was just wondering... what do you think of The Handmaids Tale, the book = scared me... worse than Fareignheit 451, but it is an excellent book. I = have decided that everyone should read this book at least once, so for = the winter gift giving season, I am giving copies to all of my friends. = In the book, womyn are treated very poorly, they have no rights or = anything, but I would consider it to be "feminist sci-fi". Almost as = though Margaret Atwood makes her point by saying the opposite... I = don't know, maybe I am prattling... what do you think? Becca rstoler@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Dreams Are Born In The Heart And Mind, And Only There Can They Ever Die remember Narnia, wonderland, MiddleEarth, and Never Never Land, and you = shall truly never die. Peace Be With Thee and Blessed Be ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:44:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <3.0.4.16.19971110100019.409f753e@pop.truman.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:59 10-11-97 -0600, Martha Bartter wrote: >_Stranger in a Strange Land_ raised some eyebrows when first printed, but >the big controversy accumulated about the Manson group after their >killing spree -- turned out that they used the book as a kind of bible. >Some opined then that Heinlein should never have written it, though it >seems like a bad idea to hold an author responsible for the misuse of his >text by an impressionable group led by a nut case. > I agree that it is a very bad idea. People will read what meanings they wish according to their needs and conditioning. Other people will use any excuse to censor a book that they perceive as critical of their favorite obsession. Someone gave the example of the Heinlein novel being censored by some religious groups. (Personally, I don't call that religion but that's off-topic.) Right now, there is a high-profile murder trial going on in Washington where I live. A teenager brought a gun to school, entered his classroom, and killed his teacher and two students. His lawyers claim that he was influenced by a Stephen King story. They also claim that he has Bipolar disorder though psychiatrists testifying for the prosecution found no evidence to verify that. Regardless, over a million people suffer from Bipolar (aka manic depression) and it's safe to say that most haven't killed anyone or otherwise lost their moral centers because of their mood disorders. So people will read into the Heinlein novel whatever they wish. In the 60's, the Manson group interpreted one message that surely wasn't really in the book. It could have happened with nearly any book that had some depth. And if people had their own motives for disliking the book, they jump on that as an excuse to ban it. It won't surprise me if the rural county library where the Washington murders occurred suddenly decides to ban Stephen King. Some of his work has already been pulled from the school library, albeit quietly. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:49:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: _Sarah Canary_ sort of SPOILER In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > Anybody going to leap in on Joel's question about Sarah Canary? Joel, > I've heard it called a first contact story. Which makes it possible to > see her dress in a whole new light. That is an interesting angle, and one that seemed to be implied. However, I see it as problematic. Sarah Canary seemed so passive. I kept expecting her to do something that was obviously an attempt at communication or something but she never did. Also, all that stuff about stages and how she changed made mw think it might be something else. Yet she also seemed to defend herslef a bit and to charm people somehow. It is confusing, frustrating, and in a way very satisfying. Few books make me think and wonder about them this much. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:30:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Star Trek Women Comments: To: Cathy Deluca In-Reply-To: <199711101609.LAA08655@smtp2.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: > > In particular, Seven of Nine, Voyager's newest character, is clothed in the > tightest full-body suit that I've ever seen - not to mention the 4 inch > heels. Not exactly my picture of a strong, liberated woman. Even when she > was a Borg, her costume made sure to emphasize her large breasts and > buttocks. And the female Borg in the Star Trek movie "First Contact" was > also heavily sexualized. I haven't noticed any "buff" male Borg characters > to date. > And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:02:21 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Introduction (Tardy) In-Reply-To: <346bb0de.541182499@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > Don't think of myself as a celebrity -- several > folks post to this list who are a lot better known > than I am. Besides, there's no better way to get > handed one's ego on a plate than to expect folks > to recognize one's name. Well, a friend of mine that I just visited last weekend was looking over my shoulder at my e-mail and exclaimed "You get email from Vonda McIntyre !?!?" I had to regretfully explain to him that I was simply lucky enough to be on this e-mail list with you and several other authors, none of which he had heard of. You may be more famous than you think, especially with those tie-in books. He is one of those media tie-in freaks (despite my pushing the literary stuff his way). Who knows, maybe he'll read your books because of his obsession and like them enough to try out your completely original works. I have a feeling (from him and others) that a lot of media tie-in freaks read (or would read) other sci-fi as well, just not with the daring that most of us read it. In general I think it is somehow less risky. If the connection between tie-in books and original fiction by the same author was highlighted, maybe some of them would cross the gap. Do your tie-in books feature info on other books by you are do they feature info on tie-in books by other authors? -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:17:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: _Sarah Canary_ sort of SPOILER In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Made me think a lot too. I've always felt it a strong possibility that we'll never be able to recognize alien intelligence because it'll be so, well, *alien* that none of our markers for judging will apply. The behaviour of an alien being may be completely incomprehensible. There is also the possibility that Sarah's dress wasn't so much a spacesuit as it was a cocoon (if I remember, there are references to butterflies all through the novel). That made me think of references throughout human history to sentient non-human beings living among us--the green children, for example--whose behaviour is also incomprehensible. I think that Karen Joy Fowler has deliberately not answered any of those speculations, and I really like that. I have my own theories about what the %#@$&?)(*? was going on with Sarah Canary, and given Karen's silence on the matter, they're probably about as valid as any other. -nalo On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Joel VanLaven wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > > Anybody going to leap in on Joel's question about Sarah Canary? Joel, > > I've heard it called a first contact story. Which makes it possible to > > see her dress in a whole new light. > > That is an interesting angle, and one that seemed to be implied. However, > I see it as problematic. Sarah Canary seemed so passive. I kept > expecting her to do something that was obviously an attempt at > communication or something but she never did. Also, all that stuff about > stages and how she changed made mw think it might be something else. Yet > she also seemed to defend herslef a bit and to charm people somehow. It > is confusing, frustrating, and in a way very satisfying. Few books make > me think and wonder about them this much. > > -- Joel VanLaven > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:24:54 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Star Trek Women MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I doubt they'd have the courage. That would be interesting, though. At first, I was not pleased with the entry of "Borg Babe" into the ST Voyager cast. She seemed like a Barbie doll with a computer for a brain. I still dislike the clothing/heels thing, but I am growing to like the character enough to be willing to give the writers a chance to evolve "7" into a complex and complete character rather than a caricature of femininity. Heck, I used to wear heels in my very early 20's. I gave 'em up. Maybe she will, too. Lindy Pat wrote: > > And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this > spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! > Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu -- If you can't say anything nice. . . come right over here and sit by me! http://www.best.com/~laorka ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:21:02 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Star Trek Women Hi to everyone...I guess I am "delurking"... I am a little bothered by the following statements: > > > > In particular, Seven of Nine, Voyager's newest character, is clothed in the > > tightest full-body suit that I've ever seen - not to mention the 4 inch > > heels. Not exactly my picture of a strong, liberated woman. Even when she > > was a Borg, her costume made sure to emphasize her large breasts and > > buttocks. And the female Borg in the Star Trek movie "First Contact" was > > also heavily sexualized. I haven't noticed any "buff" male Borg characters > > to date. > > I have a view of feminism that allows all women and men to dress (and think and feel) as they see fit. I think we may misjudge many people if we base our view of their "liberation" based on their mode of dress. This includes characters on programs... > And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this > spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! > Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > Now, this is what concerns me. First, is the "spacegoing bimbo" a reference to Seven of Nine? If so, what is "in her defense" actually referring to? Is it the delayed adolescence in defense of her attire, or her coming out as a lesbian? Thanks in advance, Penny ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Pat wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: > > > > > In particular, Seven of Nine, Voyager's newest character, is clothed in the > > tightest full-body suit that I've ever seen - not to mention the 4 inch > > heels. Not exactly my picture of a strong, liberated woman. Even when she > > was a Borg, her costume made sure to emphasize her large breasts and > > buttocks. And the female Borg in the Star Trek movie "First Contact" was > > also heavily sexualized. I haven't noticed any "buff" male Borg characters > > to date. > > > And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this > spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! > Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > Okay, I'm going back into Devil's Advocate mode: why can't a strong, liberated woman wear tight clothing and high heels if she wants to? And some lesbians *like* being femme, y'know? I have had several blonde, curvacious, pretty and well-dressed (and very bright!) students throughout my teaching career who've gone on at great length, when given the chance, about how much they hate being called "bimbos" just because of how they look. For all I know, some of them were lesbians, although I didn't ask. (Various students have assumed that I'm lesbian just because I have short hair!) The pretty/sexy = dumb = straight stereotype is, IMHO, one of the most misogynist ones out there, and I'm acutely uncomfortable with seeing feminists perpetuate it. Now, since I don't have a TV and therefore haven't seen any of the zillion new versions of ST, I don't know anything about this character's *behavior.* If she acts like a bimbo, that's one thing. But the outside of the package has no correlation with the number of gray cells inside. Right? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Pat wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: > > > > > > And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this > spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! > Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > The rumor I heard was that when Seven discovers her sexuality she is going to try as many permutations as possible to try to understand i. (Sweeps week, perhaps?) Denise M. Borgen ~ Of course! Unix *is* User Friendly! ~ ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ It's just very particular about who its' friends are ~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:12:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Armstrong Subject: Attack Of The 2,000-Foot Vulva from Outer Space (Re: Starship Troopers) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Apparently there is something so disturbing about women's genitals that >they're a natural model for evil alien nasty bits. (A recurrent visual >element in the Alien movies' marketing is a glowing vertical slit.) Interesting. It never occurred to me that this glowing slit was anything other than the luminous pupil of an alien eye -- "luminous" in the same way that a cat's eye, with its vertically slitted pupil, reflects light. But then again, I've never seen any of the "Alien" movies. (Being prone to nightmares that can last for decades, I decided these movies might be too expensive for me. Much though the idea of the Sigourney Weaver character appeals to me.) -- Susan A. Susan Armstrong * Vancouver, Canada * anariska@mortimer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:21:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Star Trek Women Comments: To: Cathy Deluca In-Reply-To: <199711101609.LAA08655@smtp2.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: > But... > While the current TV Guide article featuring Dax and Seven of Nine is > intended to applaud Star Trek for finally featuring strong women, it > actually masks the objectification of these women and the embodiment of > unrealistic standards of beauty. It is no coincidence that these very > popular characters are white, young, tall, and extremely thin. So while it > is wonderful that Star Trek has several strong female characters, it is not > surprising that they don't look like you and me. In this respect, Star > Trek is no different than any other current tv program in which the female > characters look like they haven't eaten in weeks. And the TV Guide pictures were particularly awful too. My (photography professor) husband's take on the cover was that someone had been airbrushing 7 of 9 within an inch of her life. Also, if you look at the lighting in the picture of the two women together, there's this weird light they're using to backlight that shows up in such a way it's shining from one of the women's crotch areas. Someone trying to go for the suggestive? The thing that's always bothered me about Trek's attempts to portray strong women is that with the exception of Tasha Yar, it took until Janeway to have a regular strong female who was of mostly human origin. The impression I got was that by presenting the strong female characters (Kira, Dax, etc.) as humanoid aliens, they could on one hand offer them up as strong, intelligent beings, but on the other hand, they weren't really human women, and weren't as threatening to the old boys club types. Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:24:23 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? The suffragists were the womyn of the upper class, they were wealthy womyn with time on their hands. This is a total myth! Not all of them, at least in the UK. Upper-class is certainly pushing it (a few perhaps, e.g. Charlotte Despard, Lady Contance Lytton), middle-class certainly, but many were no more than lower-middle and struggling to make a living, and significant numbers of working women were active in the suffrage struggle--see Liddington and Norris's 'One Hand Tied Behind Us' about the radical suffragists of the North of England. It is, as they say, not a coincidence that the suffrage movement in GB had close links with the Labour Party. I don't know if the ?mid-70s drama series about the struggle for the vote, Shoulder to Shoulder, was ever shown in the US, but there was at least one episode specifically about Annie Kenney, a Lancashire mill-worker who became a leading suffragette. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:05:25 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Womens' work (wasTie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It?) Becca remarks If I remember the statistics right, something like 38 percent of womyn in 19th century England held jobs. The upper class (where Dickinson was), had a much lower percentage And this only counts women who had a full-enough time job to be classified under that occupation in the census returns. Few women who did something besides running a household to keep the family finances going--from occasional prostitution (e.g. wives of sailors) to taking in laundry to running a small dame-school (see Mrs Garth in George Eliot's 'Middlemarch) to writing novels (there seems like a whole group of Victorian women writers who had to churn out novels, articles, etc to keep their invalid/dead-beat male relatives in the style to which they believed themselves accustomed)--would be recorded under anything but marital status. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:28:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jill Gillham Subject: Re: Star Trek Women (was Re: Starship Troopers) In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971110082238.00eafe40@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Enoch's Vision wrote: > TVGuide quotes the nearly-Supermodel Seven of Nine as saying that it was > her idea to wear four-inch heels. I didn't understand her stated reason for > that though it seemed somehow fashion-related. It went right by me. What's My answer comes from the debate on whether or not contestants in the Miss America pagent should be allowed to wear high heels during the swimsuit competition, so it may not be 100% on. Basically, if ye wearing heels, it makes your gluteous maximus appear to be smaller. (Long term wearing of heels can also cause changes in your achilles tendons, but hey, you wouldn't want to actually have to run fast or jump or something) Jill Gillham jilkey@grfn.org http://members.aol.com/~ferndock2 \|/ \|/ D=|[[] "All-arm'd I ride, whate'er betide, =0: + =0: = \O/ Until I find the Holy Grail." /|\ /|\ |*| -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson [Go WINGS!] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:57:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:38 10-11-97 -0800, Denise Borgen wrote: >On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Pat wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: >> >> And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have this >> spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! >> Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed adolescence.> >> >The rumor I heard was that when Seven discovers her sexuality she is >going to try as many permutations as possible to try to understand i. >(Sweeps week, perhaps?) > I asked a friend of mine at Microsoft who is the expert on all matters Trek, Lesbian, and anything in between and she immediately pointed me to: http://www.gaytrek.com/pr.html. It is a Press release. However, Paramount didn't issue it and will not comment on it. My own attitude is "so what?" ST will simply be catering to a special interest group if they do it. Nothing new there. They still won't have a strong woman character besides Kira Narice(sp?) who can serve as a role model for the widest possible audience. I think that should be a higher priority. "I'd like to take this time to push my personal political agenda." "Unfortunately, I don't have one." --Tim Allen (at the 1995 Oscar ceremony) Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:30:58 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Susan Palwick wrote: >that the problem with the film is that in fact it doesn't have the courage >of the book's fascist convictions, that the book focussed on the brutality >of the military training rather than showing it as a co-ed summer camp, >and that by doing so it made disturbing but undismissable points about the >efficacy of certain kinds of cruelty. Certainly the book (which I haven't >read myself, although I intend to) bothered people within the field enough >to produce several noteworthy responses, including Haldeman's "The Forever >War" and Card's "Ender's Game." The point of this review, and I'm sorry >that I've forgotten where it appeared, was that by toning *down* its >material, the film has obviated the possibility for that kind of >continuing dialog; it's content to gross people out without making them >think. Please -- let's not get into the "Heinlein was a fascist" nonsense. _Starship Troopers_ is a novel of political philosophy set against the background of a war. Without assertin geither that it was "right" or that it was "wrong", I aver that dismissing it thoughtlessly is thoughtless. And this is the first I'd heard that _The Forever War_ and "Ender's Game" were responses to _Starship Troopers_. Where did you learn this? Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:41:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Stephen Smith wrote: >Liddy: > Thanks for the info on Heinlein...I know absolutely NOTHING about him. I >must comment though on this Star Trek jab. I have watched several >documentaries about Mr Roddenberry and though I don't think he was any kind of >saint, he did MAKE ATTEMPTS to push the envelope for women. If Majel Barrett >can be trusted (the widow Roddenberry) she says that Roddenberry wanted number >one to be a woman. IN fact the pilot show pitched to the networks HAS her as >number one (majel barrett that is). There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) that Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. King convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model of a reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. One of the people who might not have has the same career without that inspiration is Woopie Goldberg. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:07:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeanine Pedersen Subject: Re: Heinlein & Starship Troopers palwick@SCS.UNR.EDU said... I read a fascinating review by someone who said that the problem with the film is that in fact it doesn't have the courage of the book's fascist convictions, that the book focussed on the brutality of the military training rather than showing it as a co-ed summer camp, and that by doing so it made disturbing but undismissable points about the efficacy of certain kinds of cruelty... I am assuming the writer is speaking of Starship Troopers here -- it wasn't completely clear to me -- if so, Heinlein was hardly a fascist, but really very enamored of the Spartan tradition. "Fascist conviction" packs a strong emotional message that really, when speaking of Heinlein's work, is inaccurrate and unfair. If I mis-read the post, my apologies. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:07:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: high heels (was Starship Troopers) (no longer sf, but one wishes it were) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jill Gillham wrote: > > My answer comes from the debate on whether or not contestants in the Miss > America pagent should be allowed to wear high heels during the swimsuit > competition NH: :) Seems like the wrong question to me. What about a debate on the purpose of the 'pageant' itself? > Basically, if ye wearing heels, it makes your gluteous maximus appear to > be smaller. NH: Wait up; *SMALLER?!?* Heels make you stick your ass out behind and your chest out in front in order to be able to stand straight at all. -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:29:42 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF In-Reply-To: <01bcedf5$c8cd4f00$72745181@raven.tcs.tulane.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:29 AM 11/10/97 -0600, you wrote: > what do you think of The Handmaids Tale, the book scared me... worse >than Fareignheit 451 "" I don't know, maybe I am prattling... what do >you think? Becca rstoler@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Dreams Are Born In >The Heart And Mind, And Only There Can They Ever Die >remember Narnia, wonderland, MiddleEarth, and Never Never Land, and you >shall truly never die. Please check the settings on your email program -- Your post was "formatted" to teeny tiny type by Eudora under Windows! Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:37:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Penelope Gibbs wrote: >Hi to everyone...I guess I am "delurking"... > >I am a little bothered by the following statements: < 7/9's costume description snipped> >I have a view of feminism that allows all women and men to dress (and >think and feel) as they see fit. I think we may misjudge >many people if we base our view of their "liberation" based on their mode of >dress. This includes characters on programs... I'm with you completely on people. "Characters", however, are commercial constructs, which are introduced to the public only after having been passed through committees of committees, each with its share of devout cowards. Neil NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:52:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Re: Starship Troopers >>There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) that Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. King convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model of a reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. One of the people who might not have has the same career without that inspiration is Woopie Goldberg<< Hell, the first black woman astronaut, Mae Jamison (sp?) credits Lt. Uhura as being her inspiration. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:52:48 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: To Vonda In-Reply-To: <34671C5A@msmailpc01.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Rhian, Glad to know it wasn't so off-topic that everybody would like to whack me with the Salmon of Correction. Vonda On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:38:00 EST, Rhian Merris wrote: >... >Thank you for the "rant" about tie-ins. I found it to be an excellent >explanation of the situation in current SF writing. This was >particularly revelatory to me: (pardon me if I'm making up words again) > > ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:47:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Heinlein & Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <971110150747_-290453931@mrin46.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jeanine Pedersen wrote: > palwick@SCS.UNR.EDU said... I read a fascinating review by someone who said > that the problem with the film is that in fact it doesn't have the courage > of the book's fascist convictions, that the book focussed on the brutality > of the military training rather than showing it as a co-ed summer camp, > and that by doing so it made disturbing but undismissable points about the > efficacy of certain kinds of cruelty... > > I am assuming the writer is speaking of Starship Troopers here -- it wasn't > completely clear to me -- if so, Heinlein was hardly a fascist, but really > very enamored of the Spartan tradition. "Fascist conviction" packs a strong > emotional message that really, when speaking of Heinlein's work, is > inaccurrate and unfair. If I mis-read the post, my apologies. > No, you didn't misread the post, but "fascist convictions" was the reviewer's phrase, not mine. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:54:25 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Penny is delurking again. The anecdote I think you were referring to is not correct as you state it. Nichelle Nicolls (sp?) was having what she thought was a dating relationship with Gene R., and he invited her to his home. When she arrived, Majel Barrett (sp?) answered the door. When Nichelle asked "what are you doing here", Majel answered "I live here". Nichelle was crushed, as she was in love with Rodenberry. She wanted to quit the show for this reason, not because she was unhappy with the Uhura character. And yes, Dr. King did convince her to stay with the show. And yes, she was quite a role model for many, many people. > There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) that > Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. King > convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model of a > reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. > One of the people who might not have has the same career without that > inspiration is Woopie Goldberg. > > > Neil Rest > NeilRest@tezcat.com > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:59:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971110103058.006acfb4@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Neil Rest wrote: > > Please -- let's not get into the "Heinlein was a fascist" nonsense. > _Starship Troopers_ is a novel of political philosophy set against the > background of a war. Without assertin geither that it was "right" or that > it was "wrong", I aver that dismissing it thoughtlessly is thoughtless. > > And this is the first I'd heard that _The Forever War_ and "Ender's Game" > were responses to _Starship Troopers_. Where did you learn this? > > > Neil Rest > NeilRest@tezcat.com > I didn't say it: the reviewer did. And he didn't say that Heinlein was a fascist, merely that the book's philosophy was. And his whole point was that the philosophy in the book was sufficiently rigorous that he *couldn't* dismiss it thoughtlessly . . . as, evidently, could neither Haldeman nor Card (I believe I've heard this from both of them personally, at various workshops, but if not, then I've read it in interviews with them). He was complaining that the movie *could* be dismissed thoughtlessly, and that made him unhappy. Sorry if I didn't make clear which ideas were mine and which were his, but don't shoot the messenger, okay? :) Peace, SP ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:30:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Uhura/Nichelle Nichols Was Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I remember the story told the way Neil described it. Wasn't it included in one of the many Star Trek 25th anniversary programs? I have difficulty comprehending that Nichelle, after working on the set with Majel and Gene, might be clueless regarding their relationship, especially when living together. Do you remember the source of this version? Lindy Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > Penny is delurking again. > > The anecdote I think you were referring to is not correct as you > state it. Nichelle Nicolls (sp?) was having what she thought was a > dating relationship with Gene R., and he invited her to his home. > When she arrived, Majel Barrett (sp?) answered the door. When > Nichelle asked "what are you doing here", Majel answered "I live > here". Nichelle was crushed, as she was in love with Rodenberry. She > wanted to quit the show for this reason, not because she was unhappy > with the Uhura character. And yes, Dr. King did convince her to stay > with the show. And yes, she was quite a role model for many, many > people. > > > There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) that > > Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. King > > convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model of a > > reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. > > One of the people who might not have has the same career without that > > inspiration is Woopie Goldberg. > > > > > > Neil Rest > > NeilRest@tezcat.com > > -- If you can't say anything nice. . . come right over here and sit by me! http://www.best.com/~laorka ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:36:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Vonda-- I wrote that original message, which was a bit of a rant of my own. I'm sorry if you understood me to say that "media tie-ins are killing SF," as that wasn't really my intention. I read them myself; I own a nearly complete set of the Dr. Who novels, and I do think I can speak about tie-ins even if I've never written one and my employers, DAW Books, don't publish any. The message was a response to a discussion on why sales are dwindling, and what publishers do to try to bolster sales. I don't think that media novels are "killing" SF, but I do believe they are cutting into sales of mainstream SF. We're just going to have to disagree on that point. IMHO, media novels are like fast food: you know what you're going to get, and they're pretty satisfying even if they make you flabby. It's a lot easier to go buy the newest Star Trek novel than to peruse the SF shelves, reading back cover copy, to try to find something new and different. I've done this myself many times, and I'm a SF snob! And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm a great believer in letting people read what they want. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people seem to want to read SF these days. And that's too bad. I don't know how we're going to change it, either. >>>One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for the reader of mainstream sf is that they support quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who would find it difficult to subsist on the advances for their original novels. I certainly don't begrudge writers the nice paychecks they get from writing media novels; I have friends who write Star Trek novels and not only do they welcome the money, they have lots of fun doing it. However, I do wish consumers would try harder to find and reach for the new talent on the bookstore shelves, and not be lazy and go for the Big Mac/Star Wars novel. I have a lot of writer colleauges and friends, and I wish they could make more money. Sales influence my paycheck as well! And about new writers: I made that comment because it is true. I always thought, before I began working in publishing, that there were lots of good manuscripts that didn't get published because the lists were too crowded or because they didn't fit the current fashion or something similar. It's not true, not now, anyway, if it ever was in the past. As I said, I just haven't been deluged in quality SF slush. I wish I were. (Sean, I haven't had time to look at your ms yet, so don't take that personally! :-) ) Re ghettoizing--- Hell, let Michael Crichton into SFWA. If that story is true, it probably is all due to jealousy about his phenominal sales. Let Stephen King in as well, if he wants. His "Wizard and Glass" beats the pants off of most current best-selling fantasy anyway. Re The Moon and the Sun: Congratulations on the great reviews and notice. I'm looking forward to reading it when it comes out in paperback (Like a lot of people, I hate to buy hardbacks unless they're $14 at Costco). Debra Euler >>> "Vonda N. McIntyre" - 11/8/97 5:11 AM >>> (I debated with myself over whether to send this. It turned into a bit of a rant so it's kind of long; I apologize. You guys encouraged me, so it's all your fault. -- V.) A week or so ago someone bemoaned the poor quality of novel manuscripts by new writers and the poor judgment of the reading audience in preferring media tie-in books to mainstream sf. This was my response. I know writers who published two or three or TWENTY creditable sf novels but who cannot sell their (equally creditable, or better) third or fourth or twenty-first novels. The excuse is that their previous novels didn't sell enough copies so the chain stores will no longer order their books. (Whether this is true or not, I don't know; it's the reason they were given.) Some of these writers have been offered the chance to "start over" again with a new name, a third or fourth or twentieth novel published as a "first novel" -- and, oh, by the way, you have to take a first novel advance for the book, too. How can one enthusiastically encourage new writers when one is aware of the sort of treatment they're likely to encounter? What can one say to a new writer who has sent a bit of their heart to a publisher who's sat on it for a year without a word? As for tie-ins, I must disagree with the idea that the difficulties sf is having are due to the preference of readers for media tie-in books. This rather widely-held belief presupposes that the audience for tie-in books includes all the same people as the audience for mainstream sf, and that they choose tie-ins over original novels. It's always made to sound like a child choosing halloween candy over broccoli. I think this is a false analogy. One could make as good a case (probably better) for the preference of readers for romance or mystery or even fantasy over sf. It _is_ a difficulty that the means of production and the shelf space for media tie-ins are connected, more or less by accident, with the means of production and the shelf space for sf. If blockbuster movies were mysteries or romances, the tie-in production resources and shelf space would be in their corners of bookstores. SF movies and sf novels kinda sorta bear a vague resemblance to each other so they end up in the same place. The audience, however, is quite different. The audience for media tie-in books is at a minimum ten times the size of the audience for science fiction. It is, in my experience, an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AUDIENCE. If I and every other writer who had ever written a Star Trek or Star Wars book were taken out and killed, as some of our colleagues would like, and all our books burned, it would make not a blip's worth of difference on the sales curve for mainstream science fiction. Having a bestselling tie-in novel will have virtually no effect on one's original fiction sales, much as one might wish the opposite. The folks who enjoy media tie-in books are looking for a different experience. Not better. Not worse. Just _different_. One thing tie-ins do accomplish, indirectly, for the reader of mainstream sf is that they support quite a large number of mainstream sf writers who would find it difficult to subsist on the advances for their original novels. It does none of us, readers or writers, any good to keep wailing about how media tie-in books are wiping out science fiction. It isn't true. Nor would wiping out media tie-in books help sf. The only thing that will keep sf from becoming boutique publishing, as the average sales of the average mass-market sf novel continue to plummet, is trying to expand the audience for science fiction. Whether that's possible, I have no idea. For all I know, the sf audience (actual _or_ potential) is finite and saturated. I know nothing about advertising or marketing. I wouldn't even know how to start attempting to enlarge the market. My level of advertising sophistication would run more or less to Uncle Martin growing his antennae and asking, "Got Science Fiction?" If I had a couple million bucks, I'd hire Eileen Gunn and ask her to try a publicity campaign. I think marketing niches and pigeonholing are a lot more dangerous to sf than media tie-in novels. I think we may be sub-ghettoizing ourselves out of existence: Can't count "Flowers for Algernon" as science fiction because... because why? Maybe because it was too good? (I heard that the following happened but have no independent proof of it. Consider it, at best, secondhand gossip. But I think it accurately reflects the mind-set of a large proportion of sf writers.) Michael Crichton wants to join SFWA? Let's ridicule him until he goes away, because... because why? Because he's a worse writer, technically, than anybody else in the organization? Not bloody likely. (Besides, nobody ever asks about the quality of your writing when you apply to join SFWA. They ask if you've sold something to a professional market.) Because he makes classic sf ideas accessible to a wider audience? (Gosh, what a horrible concept.) Could it be because... because he makes too much money? A long-time member of SFWA tried to define Ursula K. Le Guin as "not a science fiction writer" because she writes in other genres. (Ursula herself always describes herself, first, as "a science fiction writer," and this moronic campaign against her very much hurt her feelings.) I do know that my book The Moon and the Sun, which straddles several genres (sf, historical fiction, alternate history, fantasy), has gotten, first, the best reviews of any book of my career, and, second, the following comment from a seriously depressing number of publications that might have been expected to review it: "Gosh. It's a wonderful book. We love it. But... we don't know how to pigeonhole it. So we're going to ignore it." Vonda Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:22:06 -0400: >I certainly haven't been deluged in quality >manuscripts from new authors http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:30:46 -0600 Reply-To: lguerra@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: luz guerra Subject: Re: high heels (trying to make it SF) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit lg: Actually, high heels in sf is a hot topic of concern with my son and I. We can suspend belief about alot of aspects of SF presented to us in the movies and on TV -- but one thing that kills believe-ablity (sp?) for us is when one of our sf heros runs down a dark alley, jumps over a fence, and tackles a bad-guy in high heels. Several episodes of X-Files falls into this category, with Scully wearing the offending heels. I can remember at least one episode of ST DS9 where Dax went into battle mode with heels on. We might call it the "high-heel factor" -- it'll ruin an otherwise good story line every time in our house!! luz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:44:50 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Uhura/Nichelle Nichols Was Re: Starship Troopers The source of my info was an interview with Nichelle Nichols (although I do not remember who the interviewer was, but this story (or some facsimile) was told by Nichelle, and I saw the interview. If I can find the source of the interview I will let you know. Penny > > I remember the story told the way Neil described it. Wasn't > it included in one of the many Star Trek 25th anniversary > programs? > > I have difficulty comprehending that Nichelle, after working > on the set with Majel and Gene, might be clueless regarding > their relationship, especially when living together. > > Do you remember the source of this version? > > Lindy > > > > The anecdote I think you were referring to is not correct as you > > state it. Nichelle Nicolls (sp?) was having what she thought was a > > dating relationship with Gene R., and he invited her to his home. > > When she arrived, Majel Barrett (sp?) answered the door. When > > Nichelle asked "what are you doing here", Majel answered "I live > > here". Nichelle was crushed, as she was in love with Rodenberry. She > > wanted to quit the show for this reason, not because she was unhappy > > with the Uhura character. And yes, Dr. King did convince her to stay > > with the show. And yes, she was quite a role model for many, many > > people. > > > > > There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) that > > > Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. King > > > convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model of a > > > reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. > > > One of the people who might not have has the same career without that > > > inspiration is Woopie Goldberg. > > > > > > > > > Neil Rest > > > NeilRest@tezcat.com > > > > > -- > If you can't say anything nice. . . come right over here and sit by me! > > http://www.best.com/~laorka > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:32:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Marguerite C, Turner" Subject: introduction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I want to introduce myself as per request from Laura. My name is Marguerite and I am a newbie at list e-mail and chatting, so I have been just lurking since I signed on Tuesday the 4th. and I will probably continue to lurk until I get to know what I am doing is the correct way to do things. I just received an e-mail from my son telling me he had seen Starship Troopers and he thought the movie followed the novel more closely than he had expected. He was also impressed with the special effects in the movie. I am an author wannabe and that is the reason I signed on to the list, because the notice I read said it was a discussion about female SF writers. I have enjoyed the discussions so far and as I said I shall continue to lurk for a time or until I am told to say something or quit the list. Marguerite ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:49:25 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: Star Trek Women- 7 of 9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, since no one has said anything, first I'll introduce myself (if I have to) and then (I hate to argue on a first post...) get to my point. My name is misha, I like to read (and watch, but that is much rarer) SF esp feminist stuff which I discovered (officially) in various courses at university. Currently I'm working (grad sch is expensive) but eventually I want to become a horrid academician and I'm sure SF and gender will fit in there somewhere, even if I force the square peg into the round hole. My comment, on Cary's (excerpted below): I don't think that having a queer character on StarTrek would be catering to a special interest group any more than, say, having blonde women would be. Since a documented portion of the current population is queer (and most SF reflects current populations and their issues- hopefully!), it would be considerate or expected to have a segment reflected in the character make-up. This leads into my next comment. Why can't a lesbian (strong or weak) woman character serve as a role model for the widest possible audience? She would still be a woman? I would rather see ANY good female characters than become picky over to me irrelevant aspects of them. Should queer viewers of ST complain because they have no role models on the show... if a queer character apparently cannot serve as a role model "for the widest possible audience?" I don't mean to attack Cary, and I feel that is what I am doing, unfortunately. I just want to question the assumption that somehow women devolve into their sexuality and that precludes them being "strong." misha bernardm@colorado.edu >My own attitude is "so what?" >ST will simply be catering to a special interest group if they do it. >Nothing new there. They still won't have a strong woman character besides >Kira Narice(sp?) who can serve as a role model for the widest possible >audience. I think that should be a higher priority. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:23:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peggy Hamilton Subject: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enoch's Vision wrote: > Dax was the worst example that TVGuide could have given. I like her but > that is probably just visceral and shallow of me. However, she is male in > gender, or perhaps 'mental sex' is a better phrase. She is very nearly a > satire. Captain Sisko still addresses her as "Old Man" to remind us of her > nature. Is the message that a woman has to be guided by an internal and > worldly wise male to be truly strong? Or is she a parody, mixed message, or > simply a badly-conceived character? How about that sex is a function of the body you are currently inhabiting, and that percieved "gendered" behaviors are cultural add-ons. The Dax part of Jadzia Dax has been both male and female. She refers to having given birth and raising children in past "lives" as well as the military background that is more relevant to her current job. As for her "mental sex" being male, I cannot remember any behavior that I might not have done myself in similar situations. Does that make my "brain sex" male, even though I am most definitely ans happily Female? As for Starship Troopers I am the opposite of many who have posted in that I know the book quite well; I use it in one of my classes, but I have not seen the movie (though I intend to). Heilein most certainly did not intend to satirize the military. He was an Annapolis graduate who left the Navy only because he was retired on a disability pension due to TB. He had the greatest respect for those willing to risk themselves to protect the larger society. (Read "The Pragmatics of Patriotism" in Expanded Universe.) He answers the charges of fascism in Starship Troopers himself in an afterward, also in Expanded Universe, where he points out that most of the rights we hold sacred--freedom of speech religion etc--are protected for everyone, and that the only thing you earn through Federal Service, which is not necessarily military service, is the right to vote, run for political office and hold a few protected jobs. Furthermore, you are not a citizen, able to vote, until after you have completed your service, so the government is not being run by the military. I do not agree with all of his positions in ST but the charge of fascism is unfair and inaccurate. His point, which he explains in essay form in Expanded Universe, was that our current "18 and alive" (for the US) voting rights invites stupidity, unreason, and irresonsibility, and while the Federal Service requirement for voting would not guarantee intelligence, reason or responsibility, it would assure that people valued the right to vote, having had to sacrifice to get it, and that they had at least at sometime in the past been able to put long term goals and/or the good of the group above their immediate personal comfort or safety. Peggy Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:17:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Star Trek Women MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two quick comments on this thread: 1) Kate Mulgrew won my heart forever by referring to herself in an interview as a "middle-aged actress." Had to read it twice, I couldn't believe any actress had enough guts (or should I say genuine self-esteem?) to say that to a note-taking reporter. 2) I wish I could remember which Trek movie featured a female admiral giving her troops the order to "Get that thing out of my sky!" (which meant to shoot down an enemy ship). That was first time I heard a woman in a Trek screenplay of any kind give a real combat order, and I cheered the character right along with her troops. Yes!!!! Nina Osier ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:25:07 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Star Trek Women You know Star Trek has "tried" homosexuality in a few episodes...there was the infamous episode between Dax and her ex-lover. There was that screen kiss that probably sent to censors in paroxysms of fear. Also the Riker and uh I don't remember what she/he was...episode. That was the official original homosexual try...and I think there was one other...but I forget. I don't think it's so awful if the character becomes a lesbian...but I wonder if they aren't trying to capitalize on "ellen." About this clothing thing again...I think it is great, fine, fantastic to dress as you like (remember the movie "the Accused" with Jodie Foster? fabulous take on this very issue). However, one must realize as I believe Susan pointed out...those clothes carry meaning. Which is why on Melrose Place or Friends or whatever Jiggle show you look at, women show their bits...for sex appeal. Plain and simple. I would hope that people could rise above commodizing themselves like pieces of meat, and demonstrate at least a modicum of depth. I think Jodie Foster carries it off well. If a woman knows how people see their clothing...why not invent or subvert rather than trying to follow what is expected of them? Julien ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:02:14 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Star Trek Women MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We just had this discussion on the WIG (womyn in gaming) mailing list. The other homosexual trek episode is the one in which Dr. Crusher falls in love with a guy/symbiotic who then gets a female body. She had a major problem with this... Becca -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Smith To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Monday, November 10, 1997 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Star Trek Women >You know Star Trek has "tried" homosexuality in a few episodes...there was the >infamous episode between Dax and her ex-lover. There was that screen kiss >that probably sent to censors in paroxysms of fear. Also the Riker and uh I >don't remember what she/he was...episode. That was the official original >homosexual try...and I think there was one other...but I forget. I don't >think it's so awful if the character becomes a lesbian...but I wonder if they >aren't trying to capitalize on "ellen." > About this clothing thing again...I think it is great, fine, fantastic to >dress as you like (remember the movie "the Accused" with Jodie Foster? >fabulous take on this very issue). However, one must realize as I believe >Susan pointed out...those clothes carry meaning. Which is why on Melrose Place >or Friends or whatever Jiggle show you look at, women show their bits...for >sex appeal. Plain and simple. I would hope that people could rise above >commodizing themselves like pieces of meat, and demonstrate at least a modicum >of depth. I think Jodie Foster carries it off well. If a woman knows how >people see their clothing...why not invent or subvert rather than trying to >follow what is expected of them? >Julien > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:36:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In a message dated 97-11-10 15:22:09 EST, Cary Enoch wrote: > > At 10:38 10-11-97 -0800, Denise Borgen wrote: > >On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Pat wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Cathy Deluca wrote: > >> > >> And i picked up a rumor somewhere that they were going to have > this > >> spacegoing bimbo come out as lesbian! > >>Though in her defense - she may be undergoing a delayed > adolescence.> > >> > >The rumor I heard was that when Seven discovers her sexuality she is > >going to try as many permutations as possible to try to understand i. > >(Sweeps week, perhaps?) > > > > I asked a friend of mine at Microsoft who is the expert on all matters > Trek, Lesbian, and anything in between and she immediately pointed me to: > http://www.gaytrek.com/pr.html. It is a Press release. However, Paramount > didn't issue it and will not comment on it. My own attitude is "so what?" > ST will simply be catering to a special interest group if they do it. > Nothing new there. They still won't have a strong woman character besides > Kira Narice(sp?) who can serve as a role model for the widest possible > audience. I think that should be a higher priority. > > "I'd like to take this time to push my personal political agenda." > "Unfortunately, I don't have one." --Tim Allen (at the 1995 Oscar ceremony) > > Cary I'm sorry but I don't believe the folks behind ST will be "catering to a special interest group" if they have Seven of Nine explore lesbianism during sweeps week. Rather they will be catering to what seems to be a large segment of the male population who find the idea of lesbianism titillating while simultaneously condemning homosexuality in all forms. Hasn't anyone heard of "lesbian chic"? Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:54:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: introduction In a message dated 97-11-10 18:23:25 EST, Marguerite Turner wrote: > I have enjoyed the discussions so far and as I said I shall continue to lurk > for a time or until I am told to say something or quit the list. > > Marguerite Welcome to the list, Marguerite, and, to paraphrase a Doritos (TM) commercial: Lurk all you want, we'll write more. :) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:55:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Movie/TV List Suggestion Judging from the amount of mail generated on the topics of the Starship Troopers movie and the Star Trek women, I think a Feminist SF TV/movie list is in order. I'm not sure if this is something to go to Laura's attention, or if someone out there with more tech-savvy (and current equipment!) than myself would be interested in starting one, but it looks to me as if there's plenty of interest. (This is in no way a reprimand, as I've really enjoyed the recent discussions, I'm just worried about muddying the list for people who *aren't* interested in science fiction television and movies as much.) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:57:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In a message dated 97-11-09 22:55:37 EST, LLoyd McDaniel wrote: > > YAAAAAAYYYYYY PAT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! > > It's so much easier to bash ol' RAH than to see that he genuinly LIKED > women and placed them as equally as he could in the matrix of the > society that he had to sell to..... and face it folks..... those of you > who have been wondering if they could ever be writers and get paid for > it.... FIRST you have to SELL the story to an editor who is watching the > auduence for squirming....... > > LLoyd As the person who started this thread, I'm feeling a little responsible. For my own part, I was never trying to put down Heinlein. I admitted from the start that I have not read _Starship Troopers_, although I have read and liked some of his other work. My point from the start was not so much the original work, but rather more to do with Hollywood's treatment of it. So far as I know, it was written in 1950 (I may have the exact year wrong, but that's close, I think), so I fully expect it to not live up to our current standards of feminism. However, the movie was made in 1997 Hollywood, so I didn't think I was too out of line to think it would be given whatever updating it might need in the process of writing the screen play. I know I don't speak for everyone, but again, I feel kind of responsible for this thread, having started it and all. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:04:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: high heels (trying to make it SF) In a message dated 97-11-10 17:15:36 EST, Luz Guerra wrote : > lg: Actually, high heels in sf is a hot topic of concern with my son and > I. We can suspend belief about alot of aspects of SF presented to us in > the movies and on TV -- but one thing that kills believe-ablity (sp?) > for us is when one of our sf heros runs down a dark alley, jumps over a > fence, and tackles a bad-guy in high heels. Several episodes of X-Files > falls into this category, with Scully wearing the offending heels. I > can remember at least one episode of ST DS9 where Dax went into battle > mode with heels on. We might call it the "high-heel factor" -- it'll > ruin an otherwise good story line every time in our house!! > > luz As well as reading science fiction, I have a weakness for comic books (particularly DC superhero-type comics), and I've always maintained that Superman wouldn't be quite so "super" if he had to do all his heroing in high heels like Wonder Woman and other female superheroes do. There has, however, been a larger number (okay, 2-3 as opposed to zero a few years ago) of female superheroes who wear non-high heeled boots with their costumes. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:06:34 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers I don't watch Deep Space Nine all that much, but from what I have seen, I would classify Dax as "androgynous" -- with good and bad points from both genders in a big contradictory mix. The Dax character also seems to have other contradictions, such as being more impulsive and kiddish than many of the other characters who don't have century old "wisdom". She's not my favorite character, but I don't find her particularly offensive. Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:08:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gaya Bassham Subject: Re: Star Trek Women The other Star Trek "homosexuality" episode was when Beverly Crusher fell in love with a symbiont like the one Dax has, and then fell out of love when it was implanted in a woman. At least that's the way I remember it--I haven't seen it in a long time. But the DS9 episode didn't have anything to do with homosexuality, unless you count the teaser they kept showing of the kiss. Dax's symbiont and the other woman's symbiont had been married many many years before when they were implanted in another couple, and the whole episode centered on whether Dax and her long-lost love should violate symbiont tradition by pairing off in two different lifetimes. (If you don't watch Star Trek, that sentence probably didn't make any sense, but I can't think of a better way to explain it.) I actually felt a little ripped off by the story, since the trailers had implied that the episode was dealing with lesbianism. -- Gayla ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:14:18 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Star Trek Women I am inclined to agree with Barbara on the "lesbian chic" comment. Heck, I remember being in a room of young men when the Dax-is-interested-in-a-woman episode came out, and they were all excited. Here's a real test: would a MALE character exploring other men be received so well? Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:14:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <3467A56B.433D@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 16:23 10-11-97 -0800, Peggy Hamilton wrote: >Enoch's Vision wrote: >> Dax was the worst example that TVGuide could have given. I like her but >> that is probably just visceral and shallow of me. However, she is male in >> gender, or perhaps 'mental sex' is a better phrase. She is very nearly a >> satire. Captain Sisko still addresses her as "Old Man" to remind us of her >> nature. Is the message that a woman has to be guided by an internal and >> worldly wise male to be truly strong? Or is she a parody, mixed message, or >> simply a badly-conceived character? > >How about that sex is a function of the body you are currently >inhabiting, and that percieved "gendered" behaviors are cultural >add-ons. I agree with that definition. Sex and gender don't always coincide. Sex is defined in biological terms primarily while gender is often defined in social and other behavioral terms. Jazdia Dax is wonderfully archetypal in a sense because she illustrates that we all contain elements of both genders. It would be really interesting to write a Jungian-type essay about her. The Dax part of Jadzia Dax has been both male and female. She >refers to having given birth and raising children in past "lives" as >well as the military background that is more relevant to her current >job. >As for her "mental sex" being male, I cannot remember any behavior that >I might not have done myself in similar situations. Does that make my >"brain sex" male, even though I am most definitely ans happily Female? > No more than my having raised my two kids to adulthood by myself made me female just because I was the primary nurturer in their lives. That's just how circumstances worked out. Though I will admit that being called Mr. Mom by my kids' teachers did get on my nerves after the umpteen-thousandth time! I didn't see myself as a cariacature or anything unusual. It was, however, very quaint to some of them. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:01:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Star Trek Women- 7 of 9 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 16:49 10-11-97 -0700, Michelle Bernard wrote: >Okay, since no one has said anything, first I'll introduce myself (if I >have to) and then (I hate to argue on a first post...) get to my point. > My name is misha, I like to read (and watch, but that is much rarer) SF >esp feminist stuff which I discovered (officially) in various courses at >university. Currently I'm working (grad sch is expensive) but >eventually I want to become a horrid academician and I'm sure SF and >gender will fit in there somewhere, even if I force the square peg into >the round hole. > My comment, on Cary's (excerpted below): I don't think that having a >queer character on StarTrek would be catering to a special interest >group any more than, say, having blonde women would be. Since a >documented portion of the current population is queer (and most SF >reflects current populations and their issues- hopefully!), it would be >considerate or expected to have a segment reflected in the character >make-up. > This leads into my next comment. Why can't a lesbian (strong or weak) >woman character serve as a role model for the widest possible audience? >She would still be a woman? I would rather see ANY good female >characters than become picky over to me irrelevant aspects of them. >Should queer viewers of ST complain because they have no role models on >the show... if a queer character apparently cannot serve as a role model >"for the widest possible audience?" > I don't mean to attack Cary, and I feel that is what I am doing, >unfortunately. I just want to question the assumption that somehow >women devolve into their sexuality and that precludes them being >"strong." Don't worry, I think your criticism is well-taken and well-expressed. I shot from the hip without really thinking about what I appeared to be saying. What I meant to say was that Star Trek has not done very well so far in terms of women role models. I hope that they will consider a role model that the widest number of people can identify with. I meant no disrespect of any group whatsoever. After I read the Press Release that my Microserf friend sent me, I got the impression that ST:V was responding to pressure from a particular group. I am probably incorrect. I work at the "Evil Empire" in Redmond myself but I'm on a one-year leave-of-absence now and probably won't return anyway. In the book I'm writing now--my first fiction about 30 droll technical manuals--the alien heroine loves to make fun of Star Trek and aliens in the media in general. She pokes sarcastic fun at almost all earth entertainment. Those parts are easy to write because Star Trek is such a big, easy target. In spite of that, I've never missed any episode of any of their versions and do like it. Kira, the Bajoran freedom fighter, is the one who appeals to me the most. She also seems less two-dimensional than most of the other characters. Ideally, it should not matter what gender, orientation, race, or age any character is. Anyway, thanks for calling me on what I said. Next time I *will* have that morning coffee before I put my foot in my mouth . Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:22:46 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Netiquette and double standard In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am very glad that the child-raising thread is finally over. I'm back to the list after a break while I was catching up with my classes, and it's gone, finally. Now, since the emotions have hopefully calmed down I'd like to say something on the point of netiquette, which had been mentioned by several people (I am not sure if I spell it right, but I hope you know what I'm talking about). Since in the course of that discussion, we switched from the orignal topic to the question what is appropriate in the on-line conversation itself, I think there should be more clarity on that matter. This situation had happened before and will probably happen again, due to the fact that there are people with different opinions, and some of them put their self-esteem in dependance on whether they are right or wrong. If you want to say what you think is right, you can always hurt someone's feelings, simply because they take it more personally.It is sad but sometimes inevitable. After all, there are people were offended by school integration, by women in colleges, and by legalization of abortion, but it did not automatically make those policies wrong. Arguments happen, and it's not the end of the world. What is bad, though, is when one side gets all the blame. I've read in the Newsweek that Hillary Clinton is planning a child-care reform, which is about time, as I think many people agree. She also mentions that it will be designed "in a way that would not offend stay-home mothers". I am glad to know that the government cares to make everyone happy. What puzzles me, though, is the fact, that no one ever cares about offending working mothers. Those, who besides the sexism and underpayment at work and the load of housework they carry at home, have to deal with the numerous accusations in "selfishness", "being inappropriate mother", etc. from other women. And no one ever considers that "hate language" or tries to shut up a person who talks about "shunting away one's children". I don't remember any IMHO's around _those_ statements, or anyone calling this bad Internet manners. This is not about child care. It's about the situation when feelings of one group of people are assumed to be way more important and valueable than the other. (After all, they are working women, they don't feel bad for being called selfish, they probably "like it"). This kind of preference can create a flame war many more times, because it's simply not fair. It's based on the principle "When I do it, it's my right of free speech, when you do it, it's verbal violence." Now, we seem to be implementing the same policy on the list. Well, one lesson that I've learned from all this, is that whatever you say, you should never, ever say you are sorry. Because it only makes the "sensitive people" to jump on you with more energy. Well, it's always good to learn something new. I'll never apologize again, I promise. Other than this, my experience on this list was great. Thank you all. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:50:04 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In the movie "Conspiracy THeory" the main character is compelled to purchase "catcher in the Rye." He says that both John Hinkley Jr and I think Oswald both owned copies...but his point is...it isn't necessarily EVEN the book or its message. Some people become attached to a book for a number of reasons...not necessarily the message. (Hey Winona Ryder is claimed to be a bit "Catcher" fan...does that mean Clinton should beware? Blaming the book for a person's take on it...is definately ludicrious. Maybe if only they could control how we interepret...then they wouldn't have to ban...Call congress;} Julien ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:45:59 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've been lurking for some months now, downloading all the book recommendations for my next holdiays, and feeling frustrated by the movie discussions. I live in Auckland, New Zealand, which takes around six months to get Hollywood movies after they open in the US. So GI Jane hasn't even got here yet. I first read adult SF and fantasy in my teens in Australia, where I was lived for my first 25 years. I started with Asimov, Heinlein and Tolkein. After discovering feminism at 26 in Newzild, I looked for women writers, and discovered the wonderful 70s and 80s feminist SF&F wave. Many of those authors have given me hope many times (you may have heard of New Zealand's prolonged and disastrous free market experiment - it makes this particular feminist activist despair sometimes). Joan Slonczewski, Octavia Butler, Suzy McKee Charnas, Susan Haden Elgin, Nicola Griffith, Rosemary Kirstein, Marge Piercy, Sherri Tepper, Elizabeth Vonarburg, Kate Wilhelm, and Jane Yolen are among my favourites. I've read and enjoyed all yours, Vonda, except for the Star Trek/movie tie-in novels and your new one, which I look forward to. (I guess that supports your contention that the audiences for original SF and tie-ins are different groups of people.) A Star Wars aside - I can't get over how they managed to film a universe of people including only about six women - and get away with it! So many non-feminist and non-SF people I know who like the movies haven't even realised how token the female presence is. I hope the new SW movies allow a few good roles for women. I am getting very tired of proto-feminist movies where the heroine is set up as stroppy and independent but falls predictably into the arms of the hero with the same relationship dynamics as her non-proto forebears. However, that's another topic and this post has got too long anyway. Two quick questions - has Rosemary Kirstein produced a sequal to The Outskirter's Secret, has Jayge Carr ever done a followup on Leviathan's Deep, and does anyone know of any recent books by Janrae Frank? I hope it's okay to ask these kinds of questions on this list. Jenny Rankine ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:28:15 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: yet another thread: The Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I know that now is probably not the best time to start a thread, but I was >just wondering... what do you think of The Handmaids Tale, the book >scared me... worse than Fareignheit 451, but it is an excellent book. In >the book, womyn are treated very poorly, they have no rights or anything, >but I would consider it to be "feminist sci-fi". Almost as though >Margaret Atwood makes her point by saying the opposite... This is one of my favorite reads - well written, entirely too plausible, and certainly feminist! I either saw or heard an interview with Margaret Atwood in which she pointed out that a good deal of her vision of the future portrayed in this book was actually current reality in some countries at the time she was writing. I believe she mentioned that in Rumania at that time, birth control (and abortion, natch) were illegal and women of childbearing age were required to go for monthly check-ups in order to monitor pregnencies, and to discourage home abortions. If a woman was pregnant one month and not the next, she had some serious explaining to do. They did raise the birth rate, and I think we've all seen the TV coverage of the results at one time or another. Lots of children in little cribs, a lot of them with brain damage from lack of intensive attention in the critical first years of life - not to mention the AIDS babies (resused needles) and the simple 'failure to thrive' cases, or malnutrition and physical neglect or abuse. Ok, that was dealing with a healthy population, and in The Handmaid's Tale it's apparent that the children would highly valued and certainly not neglected - though the healthy female children would not exactly be fufilling their highest personal potential - but the point that women had been reduced to breeding stock was well made. And how quickly the system could de-evolve - Offred's daughter would remember little, if anything, of women's roles in the past, and for her children the transformation would be complete. Year One. Scary stuff, indeed. meg ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:25:11 -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: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:38 AM 11/10/97 -0800, Susan Palwick wrote: >Now, since I don't have a TV and therefore haven't seen any of the zillion >new versions of ST, I don't know anything about this character's >*behavior.* If she acts like a bimbo, that's one thing. But the outside >of the package has no correlation with the number of gray cells inside. >Right? Seven of Nine is far from a bimbo. She is somewhat similar to Tuvok, the Vulcan, in that logic and practicality seem to be the main arbiters of her behavior, though she is also capable of emotion. I think she is a great addition to Voyager, which has vastly improved this season. I think her clothing is fine, except for the high heels, which don't fit it in at all with Seven's practical nature. However, I am bothered by the fact that so many viewers of the show have fixated on her breast size, rather than her character. I do think that the responsibility for this lies on both sides: the producers of Voyager wanted Seven to be perceived as a "babe", perhaps to compensate for her "cold" persona, so they dressed her in an outfit that would make the audience very aware of the body underneath her clothes. However, all the guys I've heard (particularly on Usenet) leering and/or sneering at Seven and the actress who plays her because of her outfit are still being jerks. I guess what I'm saying is that many choices in our society carry a certain amount of symbolic baggage. What people wear, particularly "out in public" is calculated, more or less effectively, to achieve an effect. So I can't agree with Susan that the outside of the package has nothing to do with what's inside. But I certainly don't think that someone's appearance grants or revokes permission for immoral behavior on the part of others. The "she was asking for it" argument is reprehensible and all too common. -- Janice ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Radiohead, OK Computer; Tricky, Pre-Millennium Tension "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:31:40 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julien said: in the 19th > century...women didn't have the luxury of having a job to pay the rent and one > to do for fun. Women had children, stayed home, and did womanly things. > Emily couldn't even go out and get a job, (well maybe schoolmistress or some > such designated job...as long as it conformed to womens work) let alone have > an identity. WOmen were largely dependent upon the males. Think "Sense and > Sensibility." If you didn't have a father, you were married off, or went to > live with an uncle. Writing for many women was their way of expressing > themselves in a confining patriarchal structure. (SO nothing has changed ;) Julien Did you mean - when you wrote the above - women of Emily Dickinson's class? Working class women in the UK - and, I imagine, in the US did not have the opportunity to be "Angels of the Hearth" because they were a major part of the workforce demanded by the Industrial Revolution. They may have earned less than males, but they certainly contributed to the household income. Unfortunately, my knowledge of history and reading is not wide enough to be sure whether many of them had the time or energy to write as a way of expressing themselves in confining patriarchal structure. In the UK, we still (just) have a welfare state, which generally - and I am aware of the huge homelessness problem - provides some kind of safety net for women - it's certainly not perfect, but it's too simple to say that nothing has changed. Joan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:13:37 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: X-Files In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I know a lot of people don't like TV sf, but for those who do: What do you think of the new X-files season? I was kind of hoping that with death of her partner, agent Scully will become the center of the action. I am glad Moulder is alive (I like him a lot), but I was dissappointed that they reversed the roles again to more traditional scenario -- she's lying in coma, and he's risking his life to save her. Bringing in religion again, in my opinion is not a very great idea, either. It does not offend me, but I think it does not belong there. But in general, I think this season is going to be interesting. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:38:49 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > > Now, this is what concerns me. First, is the "spacegoing bimbo" > a reference to Seven of Nine? If so, what is "in her defense" > actually referring to? Is it the delayed adolescence in defense > of her attire, or her coming out as a lesbian? > Her attire and makeup and silicone lips> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu "With a 14.4 modem it's not netsurfing.It's webcrawling." "Wanted, one ghost. Experience and good character required. Ability to ing tenor an advantage. Apply Paris Opera before New Years, 1882." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:44:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Nichelle Nichols In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Freddie Baer wrote: > > >>There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) > that > Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. > King convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model > of a reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. > One of the people who might not have has the same career without that > inspiration is Woopie Goldberg<< > > Hell, the first black woman astronaut, Mae Jamison (sp?) credits Lt. > Uhura as being her inspiration. I heard that when the Challenger exploded she felt very bad because one of the people whe recruited was on board. Also that NASA wanted her so they could dispel the up-till-then quite accurate impression that the astronaut corps was a white man's club. Viva Uhura! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:52:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Heinlein most certainly > did not intend to satirize the military. Having just finished my re-read of the novel, I can't imagine why I ever thought that he might be. I've also concluded that this book doesn't have any female characters of note, and that the movie does do a tremendous job in updating it for the 90's. I'm not sure that Heinlein would agree with the changes, though. ;-) At least not at the time of his writing the novel. The book does challenge my political/humanist/judicial sensibilities significantly, though, and I haven't quite figured out just why I have problems with his proferred ideology or how to articulate them. Anyway, I feel that any book that makes me think is a good book, so I guess this one passes that muster. > His point, which he explains in essay form in > Expanded Universe, was that our current "18 and alive" (for the US) > voting rights invites stupidity, unreason, and irresonsibility, and The "Bread and Circuses" argument also appears in some of his other fiction. Sometimes I think that a politically mixed group should come up with a basic exam covering a list of issues and that only people who score a "passing" grade on the exam should have their votes counted. That would at least ensure that people understand some percentage of the issues and the candidates' stances. Of course, that would be problematical in practice. Ah well, I've strayed far enough of topic, and I really will be quiet now. Pax, -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:11:38 -0600 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: _Sarah Canary_ sort of SPOILER In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > Anybody going to leap in on Joel's question about Sarah Canary? Joel, > I've heard it called a first contact story. Which makes it possible to > see her dress in a whole new light. > > -nalo > There's been a lot of argument over Sarah Canary. It's been variously pigeon-holed as SF as fantasy as horror as magic-realism and as very strange realistic fiction by various reviewers and critics. I read it as science fiction myself, keying in on the dress that can't be unbuttoned and apparently doesn't come off. I think that it's fair to say, however, that Fowler intentionally fails to give enough clues in the text itself to allow the reader to judge with any certainty. A year or so after I read the book however, I heard Fowler say, at a WisCon I think, that when she was writing the book she saw Sarah as an alien and the book as SF. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:21:00 -0600 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: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > And this is the first I'd heard that _The Forever War_ and "Ender's Game" > > were responses to _Starship Troopers_. Where did you learn this? > > > > NeilRest@tezcat.com > > I don't know about Ender's Game, but I heard Haldeman say it himself at the Kansas City World Con in, what was it, 1976, the year he won the Hugo and Heinlein, ironically, was the guest of honor. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:33:49 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: introduction In-Reply-To: <01BCEDE5.8F26A720@186.usr5.2xtreme.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >I have enjoyed the discussions so far and as I said I shall continue to >lurk for a time or until I am told to say something or quit the list. > >Marguerite Marguerite, Welcome. Enjoy lurking. :) -Sean "America doesn't exist. I know...I lived there."--'Mon Oncle' ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:33:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Nichelle Nichols In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Freddie Baer wrote: > >> >> >>There's a famous anecdote (which I may have blurred the details of) >> that >> Nichelle Nicolls (sp?!) was not real happy with Lt. Ohura, but Dr. >> King convinced her to stay with the show, since she was a role model >> of a reaponsible, respected black woman in the future. >> One of the people who might not have has the same career without that >> inspiration is Woopie Goldberg<< Well, you spelled Nichelle's name right, but it's Lt. Uhura and Whoopi (no 'e'). Indeed, as you probably know, it was largely because of Nichelle's role that Whoopi was interested in showbiz (I think) and in doing STNG (I know). Matter of fact, I believe she asked to be on the show. I think she was a great addition and hope I see her in more STNG movies. Whoopi, can you hear me? -Sean "America doesn't exist. I know...I lived there."--'Mon Oncle' ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:47:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In a message dated 97-11-10 23:48:31 EST, Janice Dawley wrote: Regarding "Seven of Nine" on _Star_Trek:_Voyager_" > > I think her clothing is fine, except for the high heels, which don't > fit it in at all with Seven's practical nature. However, I am bothered by > the fact that so many viewers of the show have fixated on her breast size, > rather than her character. I do think that the responsibility for this lies > on both sides: the producers of Voyager wanted Seven to be perceived as a > "babe", perhaps to compensate for her "cold" persona, so they dressed her > in an outfit that would make the audience very aware of the body underneath > her clothes. However, all the guys I've heard (particularly on Usenet) > leering and/or sneering at Seven and the actress who plays her because of > her outfit are still being jerks. > > -- Janice Thanks to my media addiction, I read an interview with the actress who plays Seven and there was some comment from the producers of ST:V included in the interview. The actress seemed like a decent sort, but ST:V comes on at an impossible time for me so I haven't been following it too closely. However, according to the producers, a large part of the reason for the addition of Seven to the cast at all, and also the reason for her outfit is because they wanted to "spice up the show". Which is also why they'd been playing with a romantic storyline between Torres and Paris (which I personally found nauseating, but that's me). I don't know enough about the show to feel comfortable commenting much further, but I thought I'd at least pass on that information. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:03:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Thayer Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:25 PM 11/8/97 -0600, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jana C. McCormick >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 11:22 PM >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) > > >>Seven Years in Tibet, an excellent movie, is an example of how the >"teaching >>of compassion" depends upon the person and the setting/situation. (snip) >I agree, it was truly an excellent movie (even though it does star Brad >Pitt) It is on a par with Schindler's List, only easier to watch. I think >it is an excellent movie, that everyone should see. Perhaps even worthy of >the Best Picture award! (no, I don't work for any movie company, I am just >a college student.) > >Becca > Although I have not seen the movie yet--and plan to do so within the next couple of days--I have had the opportunity of watching eight monks from the famous Deprang Monastary (please forgive my spelling) create a sand mandala and a special show to fund the refugees in India. These monks recently came to the University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida on a special invitation from our Psycology department. The construction of the sand mandala was created in the schools art gallery, and as an art student, I watched when I could, especially between classes. I enjoyed this very much and talked a little with the monks. Just wanted to share this little tid bit. Beth A. Thayer ==============:\\\\\:==== Seek freedom and you become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and you find your liberty. --- Frank Herbert, Dune Series. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:02:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Seven Years in Tibet (The Movie) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971111010304.2dc781b8@castaway.cc.uwf.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Seek freedom and you become captive of your desires. >Seek discipline and you find your liberty. > --- Frank Herbert, Dune Series. Beth, Which book is that from? -Sean "America doesn't exist. I know...I lived there."--'Mon Oncle' ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:50:15 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > His point, which he explains in essay form in > Expanded Universe, was that our current "18 and alive" (for the US) > voting rights invites stupidity, unreason, and irresonsibility, and > while the Federal Service requirement for voting would not guarantee > intelligence, reason or responsibility, it would assure that people > valued the right to vote, having had to sacrifice to get it, and that > they had at least at sometime in the past been able to put long term > goals and/or the good of the group above their immediate personal > comfort or safety. Which is unfortunate, and, IMHO, utterly wrong. It's sad to think that someone of Heinlein's intelligence and talent was so foolish...this entire thing reminds me of something Utah Phillips says, in a school awards ceremony, on the disc he did with Ani DiFranco: "Someone will soon tell you that you are this nation's most valuable natural resource. Have you *seen* what this nation does to its valuble natural resources?" Heinlein, like most of the population of the Right, didn't realize that power is in education, not annihilation... End of rant. ;) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:02:41 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I'm digressing > And when it was captured, > helpless, surrounded by enemy troops, the "psychic" guy (Doogie Howser, MD) > placed his hand on its quivering noggin and pronounced, "It's AFRAID!" > Deanna Troi, he's out for your job! Actually, Neil Patrick Harris (he hates "Doogie," and I can't say I fault him, seeing my middle name is Douglass) is working his way around on the stage right now, notably playing Mark Cohen in RENT in LA (later to tour in the "Benny" touring company...)... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:05:46 -0600 Reply-To: lguerra@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: luz guerra Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit lg: I'm a convicted Star Trek fan, going back way back. One reason I've been able to stay with it all these years is that the series has been able to play many roles: intro of sf into US living rooms in 60s & beyond; raising *camp* to a fine art form; challenging social norms in the future that were less open to challenge in the present (in our living rooms/hollywood). As a little brown girl let me tell you I can list on one hand any tv shows that had people of color in them during the 60s -- and Star Trek was one of them. As a budding femme-inist I was pretty grossed out on occasion by the often ridiculous guest roles for women, but at least there were alot of women and the regulars were just as efficient, logical and level headed as their male counter parts. As I -- and Star Trek -- matured, so did my critique. Any one ever notice how on Next Generation the only Black stars were either not human (Worf) or changed in some way (Geordie) so we didn't see just regular old Black people's faces. Not dissimilar to someone's comment earlier in this thread about Dax and Torres and Seven of Nine. Okay, so one of my favorite shows still isn't perfect. Some of my favorite segments have been those with strong social criticism content -- remember STNG on the society that locked up it's no-longer-needed soldiers? how about kirk and spock in the twenties with the woman modeled after the founder of catholic worker house (played by Joan Collins!!)? and then, yes, the gender-bending shows of STNG and DS9 -- even if they were sometimes ridiculous and seemed to "chicken out" as when Dr. Crusher could love her simbiont as different men but not as a woman. I agree with Janice that the high heel factor for Seven of Nine is about incongruency with her practical nature in other matters. If she discovers, through experimentation in this delayed adolescence, that she is gay, great! I think ST has its share of homophobia, even when "pushing the envelope". They certainly "femmed-up" Tasha Yar and Kira when their strength, brains, and apparent androgeny made some of us think (wish?) they were butch (and therefore -- another stereotype -- lesbian). Once Kira started wearing so much make-up and giggling more she lost credibility with me. Okay, I guess this was a rant. I've enjoyed the thread. And for the record, even if Jadzia Dax's wet kiss on-screen was not about being a lesbian, it was really important to me that my son, for example, could see a positive IMAGE of two women kissing on tv. That, in its way, was just as revolutionary as the IMAGE of a Black Lt. Uhura was in the 60s. luz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:25:47 -0500 Reply-To: "Jason A. Wallwork" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jason A. Wallwork" Subject: Re: X-Files MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina, >I know a lot of people don't like TV sf, but for those who do: What do >you think of the new X-files season? It's probably outside the scope of this discussion, but nevertheless, there are X-files books now (media tie-on novels, eh, Vonda? :) so I'll mention that I love the X-files shows, although they're more fantasy and conspiracy based than on any real scientific facts (of which sci-fi is, usually). >I was dissappointed that they reversed the roles again to more traditional >scenario -- she's lying in coma, and he's risking his life to save her. I agree that yes, once again, Scully is sick, but we have to remember Mulder has been almost-dead himself, and in this particular case, Mulder was risking his life to save her, but Scully offered to sacrifice herself to save Mulder, by taking the rap for the murder. But I agree with you that Scully needs to be given more of a prominate role in the show, but if you compare where her character was years ago, it's come a long way. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason A. Wallwork, E-mail: jsheridan@bigfoot.com "It is in vain to hope to please all alike. Let a man stand with his face in what direction he will, he must necessarily turn his back on one half of the world." -George Dennison Prentice ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:25:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine Comments: To: luz guerra In-Reply-To: <34685829.18E@ibm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, luz guerra wrote: > As I -- and Star Trek -- matured, so did my critique. Any one ever > notice how on Next Generation the only Black stars were either not human > (Worf) or changed in some way (Geordie) so we didn't see just regular > old Black people's faces. NH: Amen! My impression (and I'm quite prepared to be found wrong on this) is that for awhile, TNG Klingons were largely played by black people. Hmm. Apparently, we make it into the future, but we're still cast as the universe's rude boys. We recently got a new tv channel here in Canada called Space: the Imagination Station. Shows only sf and science-related programming, including tons of reruns of old sf shows. I recently saw a promo spot for re-runs of Green Hornet. The voice-over said, "Starring Bruce Lee in one of his first roles." Didn't realise that had been Bruce Lee. Made me wonder if part of the reason he got the role was because his Asianness could be largely disguised by the mask he wore. Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out masked and with her body and hair covered? -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:31:05 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Geez, what a weekend to be gone (all 3 days, Fri - thru Sun late!!) 218 messages in my in box, and so much stuff from FEMSF that I wanted to comment on! I'm going to do separate messages, so as to be able to try for pertinent subject lines. One brief comment on media tie-ins: In my experience as a bookseller, the crossover between media tie-in authors' audiences and their non-affiliated works audiences seems to flow one way. Readers familiar with an author from their own works may be willing to try a media tie-in work by said author, but I seldom see readers of SW, ST, BVS, X-Files, etc. seeking out other works by the authors they encounter there. It may be the effect Vonda discussed of readers seeking different experiences. It may be that media tie-in novels list other novels in that universe, rather than other works by the author in general. I'm not sure. While I see Vonda, Kevin J. Anderson, Barbara Hambly, Greg Bear, Kris Rusch, and others leading their readers to the worlds of Lucas and Roddenberry, I don't see the flow in reverse, for whatever reason. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:31:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Clothes and the SF woman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Vonda, Susan, Julian, Geoffrey and all: RE: Princess Leia, the action figure I won't pretend to be an expert, but here is the skinny from my POV on the Princess Leia action figures. The current figure under discussion, "Princess Leia as Jaba's Prisoner," is indeed, as Geoffrey said, the fourth PL figure manufactured by Kenner under the current license, all of which started just a couple of years ago in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the movies. There were SW figures released in the early 80's, which command pretty good prices as collectibles in the current toy market, (part of which contributes to the current state of the toy market, but I'll save my rant on that for somewhere where it might be on topic!). Kenner seems determined to mine the movies for all they are worth, releasing variation figures in every possible aspect for the main characters (including Han Solo in carbonite, as pointed out earlier) and several outfits for PL. Also, they are releasing every damn alien ever glimpsed in any film for the briefest second, as far as I can tell. People love this stuff. (I have a friend who bought -- no joke -- 3 cases [72 figures] of storm troopers to get the proper battle effect!) All of the outfits on the small, action figure dolls are plastic. There are cloth outfits on the line's 12" figures, and Leia in white was made for this line. The next scheduled Leia is "Leia at the Ewok's Celebration," with her hair loose and in a brown wrap. The sculpt for this figure's face looks decent, as does the LAJP (aka Slave Leia) scuplt. The first two were *really* hideous, I promise. This may be part of the appeal in the current figure. Other factors: she was not made in the former series. Female action figures are perceived as more collectible, and she is particularly "hot" right now. (Sort of the Tickle Me Elmo syndrome -- but I'm NOT gonna rant. Although I guess I could tie my rant into Connie Willis and justify it that way. ) And, finally, a contingent of folks out there want a "Leia in Bondage" of their own, for reasons which probably don't bear close examination. I always thought Leia was pretty this way, but am really waiting for the Ewok outfit, which is my personal fave. AFAIK, Kenner is still marketing to thier original and continued perceived market: action figures sell to boys, is the common perception. This does not take into account the growing number of female and/or adult consumers. In some ways, we should be grateful with this marketing conception, that Princess Leia gets made at all. More female figures are made now, but they are still the minority in most lines. Quick: which action figure line is dominated by females?? "Aliens," of course!! Stray thoughts: I have to cast my vote on the side of those who asked, "Why can't a strong female character wear a chainmail bikini and 4" heels?" I always thought Lucas was making something of a pro-feminist statement by casting Carrie Fisher as Leia, rather than a more stereotypically pretty actress. Maybe that just reveals my own biases... And, I will never believe he planned the "Luke and Leia as siblings" thing from day one, personally. Spawn is a male-- a human male back from hell. There have been female spawns (the action figure made was called She-Spawn) and Spawn's enemies include angels, who are sword-wielding, kick-ass babes dressed in scanty ribbons and assorted armor. McToys (changed from Todd Toys because Mattel was upset by Todd toys because Todd is a Barbie character...) is one of the few to regularly produce and ship the same number of female characters to an assortment as male or other (trust me, this is a wierd line!). As I said, this is all my observations, and some of the toy info might be off target. However, with 50 some action figures on my shelf, including LAJP, I thought I might be a bit more obsess--er informed, than some others. :) 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:31:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: brain cells Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Susan asked: > But the outside >of the package has no correlation with the number of gray cells inside. >Right? Only if one believes the recent study that (IIRC) states that men have something like 40,000 more brain cells than women. And no one has determined what they might be used for, or whether they are used at all. :) (the extra 40,000, y'all!) 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:31:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: SF comics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julien asked about SF comics. While a great many comics use SF ideas, there are not that many SF comics, as far as I can tell. Sure, time machines, cloning, space travel, and many more SF tropes appear in comics, but for the most part, (as far as I can determine) they are comics using SF ideas rather than SF ideas being told through this medium, if that makes sense. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:45:10 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Virginia Heinlein Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bonnie Gray asked: "My question to the server is, does anybody know anything about his wife? I have heard rumors that she was quite brilliant, which may have had something to do with his incorporation of "strong" (again, look at the decades) females. I haven't seen anything written about her, though." I used to read quite a lot of Heinlein (he was often seen as fairly radical in some ways during the sixties, though he was always a staunch political conservative as he defined it)--at least he had a few more female characters (even point of view characters),and since I was pre-adolescent, I didn't see the problems with his presentation of female characters (until _Farnham's Freehold_ which put me off him for some time). I gather that his wife Virginia was a model for the strong (red haired) female protagonists in a number of his novels. I met both of them at a STAR TREK con in the late seventies: at that time, he was promoting blood donation because his life had been saved because of the rare blood society, and his "price" for appearing at a con was that they have a room set aside for blood donations. He was autographing copies of his books for the donors (or potential donors--I had a fever so they wouldn't take me, but he smiled at me and told me I had tried). In person, both of the Heinleins were charming. I loved _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and still find it a very appealing read if I sort of read carefully around parts of it. His wife is now managing his estate--and from the various anecdotes shared by writers and comments made by Heinlein himself,they seemed to have had a wonderful marriage. I came to realize as I grew older that the major problem for me in Heinlein's women (and he certainly is/was not alone in this) is the bedrock assumption that all women live to reproduce (biological/evolutionary drives), that all women are inherently different from all men (though many women are both strong and intelligent and so forth--Manny in TMIHM SAYS that his wives are smarter and better than him in all sorts of ways)--it's this sort of "manly" man and "womanly" woman, totally heterosexist (except for some flirtation with lesbian sex in _Friday_) that, just, well, depresses me especially in an author who through Lazarus Long and other characters questions a lot of other received social notions. I was terribly upset with _Podkayne of Mars_, his novel with an adolescent female hero/point of view character, when she gets breasts and basically gives up on her idea for a career in the sciences and thinks about (eek) nursing! Fits the "dumbing down" phenomenon identified for girls becoming young women in our culture. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:55:54 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: feminist dystopias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Becca--You asked about _The Handmaid's Tale_--if you are interested in this kind of book, there are other feminist dystopias (if a utopia is the BEST possible world a writer can imagine, a dystopic is the WORST possible world a writer can imagine--and feminists have written dystopias to point out what they think needs to be changed). Suzette Haden Elgin's trilogy (_Native Tongue_, _The Judas Rose_, _Earthsong_) is good (I still think Atwood owes a heavy debt to NT that she doesn't acknowledge because she was interviewed as claiming THT is NOT SF) is a good one; Joanna Russ' _The Female Man_, _We Who Are About To_, and another one whose title is a bit shaky in my mind (_Both of Them_??), Suzy McKee Charnas' _Motherlines_ trilogy (and those titles have escaped me totally, but I think all three are in print) are all dystopias that explore similar ideas and territory as THT. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:59:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: high heels (trying to make it SF) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: >As well as reading science fiction, I have a weakness for comic books >(particularly DC superhero-type comics), and I've always maintained that >Superman wouldn't be quite so "super" if he had to do all his heroing in high >heels like Wonder Woman and other female superheroes do. There has, however, >been a larger number (okay, 2-3 as opposed to zero a few years ago) of female >superheroes who wear non-high heeled boots with their costumes. Barbara: Not to pick nits, but I thought WW actually wears sandals, something like Mercury's. Could be mistaken. Actually, what I always worry about with Wondy, and a number of other female Super Heroes (and some males in their recent incarnations) is how they can see in battle with all that gorgeous hair falling in their faces. :) Since you are also a comics reader, what do you think about SF in comics? (I think Julien was the original poser of that question) 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:58:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > wore. Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out > masked and with her body and hair covered? > Now you're talking my major heroine/crush/role model when I was a little girl. Mmmmeeeeoooowwww!> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:24:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: catwoman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nalo asked: > Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out >masked and with her body and hair covered? Nalo: IIRC, she was also interacting with Bruce Wayne as Selina Kyle, in no costume, and he found her pretty attractive, not knowing her villainous intentions. :) 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:28:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: feminist dystopias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We might include the recent _The Misconceptionist_ by Lucy Ferrer. Very similar themes to _Handmaid's Tale_. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:27:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> As I -- and Star Trek -- matured, so did my critique. Any one ever >> notice how on Next Generation the only Black stars were either not human >> (Worf) or changed in some way (Geordie) so we didn't see just regular >> old Black people's faces. > >NH: Amen! My impression (and I'm quite prepared to be found wrong on >this) is that for awhile, TNG Klingons were largely played by black >people. Hmm. Apparently, we make it into the future, but we're still >cast as the universe's rude boys. We recently got a new tv channel here >in Canada called Space: the Imagination Station. Shows only sf and >science-related programming, including tons of reruns of old sf shows. I >recently saw a promo spot for re-runs of Green Hornet. The voice-over >said, "Starring Bruce Lee in one of his first roles." Didn't realise >that had been Bruce Lee. Made me wonder if part of the reason he got the >role was because his Asianness could be largely disguised by the mask he >wore. Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out >masked and with her body and hair covered? > I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, originally, the Klingons were played by Caucasian and Hispanic actors, not African-American. Sorry, just had to straighten that out. Becca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:38:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Bonnie asked: > Here's a real test: would a MALE character exploring other >men be received so well? > Seems unlikely. Didn't David Gerrold (of "Trouble with Tribbles" fame) have a script rejected because it implied two male characters (and redshirts, at that, not even lead characters) were romantically linked? 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:48:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: feminist dystopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charnas' two (is there a 3rd? I'll try and find it) works that Robin is thinking of are "Walk to the End of the Earth" and "Motherlines" that I read bound together into one volume. I didn't read "Motherlines" as a dystopia, but that's probably because I read it on the heels of the first and by comparison it was positive. misha >---------- >From: Robin Reid[SMTP:Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU] >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 8:55 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >Subject: [*FSFFU*] feminist dystopias > Suzy McKee Charnas' _Motherlines_ trilogy (and those titles have escaped >me totally, but I think all three are in print) are all dystopias that >explore similar ideas and territory as THT. > >Robin > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:59:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Sales and choices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Debra commented, in part: >Re The Moon and the Sun: > >Congratulations on the great reviews and notice. I'm looking forward >to reading it when it comes out in paperback (Like a lot of people, I >hate to buy hardbacks unless they're $14 at Costco). Okay, I'll declare that I'm biased from the get go, but... I was surprised to interpret this as Debra advocating purchasing books at non-book warehouses. This seems to be directly in contradiction to her concerns about wanting to promote growth of non-media SF. Frankly, Debra, even if you wanted to, I don't believe you COULD buy _The Moon and the Sun_ at Costco or your local equivelant. However, it's likely you can pick up the new Timothy Zahn Star Wars novel. If determining what books get published is about dollars, shouldn't we be making an effort to put our money where our philosophies are? To me, this means buying the kinds of books we say we want to see more of, and doing so at the kinds of stores that make them available. And, heck, while we're at it, why don't we all just agree to make all our purchases from my store. ;) Okay, self-interest aside, I think we need a number of sources for all sorts of SF: mainstream, small press, media tie-in, magic realism, whatever. And I think this means supporting the sources that offer them. My $.02. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:04:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: feminist dystopias In-Reply-To: <199711111555.PAA22083@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Robin Reid wrote: > Suzette Haden Elgin's trilogy (_Native Tongue_, _The Judas Rose_, > _Earthsong_) is good (I still think Atwood owes a heavy debt to NT that she > doesn't acknowledge because she was interviewed as claiming THT is NOT SF) NH: Hang on--didn't Suzette herself tell us many posts back that Atwood has been known to haul out a copy of _Native Tongue_ and acknowledge her debt to it? -nalo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:05:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > It may not be as frequent, Maryelizabeth, but it does happen! I've read "regular SF" since I was a little girl, and will read media tie-ins if they are well-written and if the particular film or TV series interests me. And if I like the tie-in author's work, I _always_ look around the bookstore on my next visit to see what else that author has on the shelves. That's how I found Vonda's books - and Alan Dean Foster's, to name just two authors who inhabit my shelves with both tie-ins and non tie-ins. I'm not questioning your experiences as a bookseller, but I am wondering if I can possibly be such an oddity...(although come to think of it, just being an SF lover makes me one to family and friends!). Nina Osier > While I see Vonda, Kevin J. > Anderson, Barbara Hambly, Greg Bear, Kris Rusch, and others leading > their > readers to the worlds of Lucas and Roddenberry, I don't see > the flow in reverse, for whatever reason. > > 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:06:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: :) Yeah, my dream is to be able to do that growl thing. Wearing the outfit that Michelle Pfeiffer wore in the same role. Heels and all. -nalo On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Pat wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Nalo Hopkinson wrote: > > > wore. Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out > > masked and with her body and hair covered? > > > Now you're talking my major heroine/crush/role model when I was a > little girl. Mmmmeeeeoooowwww!> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:09:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Oh, Drat! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth, I "snipped" when replying to your post and wound up making it appear that I was quoting you when I was not. Please excuse me, I should know what happens when I hurry. I screw up what I'm doing, that's what! Sorry sincerely - Nina Osier ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:08:07 -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: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Seven's costume seems logical to me - she would have little or no clue that it's "sexy," and a tight-fitting costume is probably practical for crawling through Jeffries tubes. However, this bothers me: why would a Borg have breasts? Borg babies are nursed by machines, and the Borg were never squeamish about removing unneccessary body parts to make room for more machinery. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:07:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: catwoman In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Right. I kinda remember that. -nalo On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Nalo asked: > > > Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out > >masked and with her body and hair covered? > > Nalo: > > IIRC, she was also interacting with Bruce Wayne as Selina Kyle, in no > costume, and he found her pretty attractive, not knowing her villainous > intentions. :) > > > 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:12:12 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: <01bceebe$a68a2700$72745181@raven.tcs.tulane.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: On the original Star Trek, yes, I know this. But on TNG? That's the one to which I was referring. It's actually hard to tell under all that makeup. -nalo On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Becca Stoler wrote: > > > I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, originally, the Klingons > were played by Caucasian and Hispanic actors, not African-American. Sorry, > just had to straighten that out. > > Becca > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:09:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: SF comics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:31 AM 11/11/97 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >Julien asked about SF comics. While a great many comics use SF ideas, there >are not that many SF comics, as far as I can tell. Sure, time machines, >cloning, space travel, and many more SF tropes appear in comics, but for >the most part, (as far as I can determine) they are comics using SF ideas >rather than SF ideas being told through this medium, if that makes sense. > I must have missed Julien's question... In France, SF bandes dessinees, or BD (pronounced /behdeh/) for short, are a *huge* market--I would venture to say (unsupported by any harder data than my general impressions) that SF BD sell more than actual SF books. Oh, and has anyone seen Delany's collaborative comic? Way fun... Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:17:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: High heels and hard hats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Susan Palwick wrote: >Okay, I'm going back into Devil's Advocate mode: why can't a strong, >liberated woman wear tight clothing and high heels if she wants to? And >some lesbians *like* being femme, y'know? > > But the outside >of the package has no correlation with the number of gray cells inside. >Right? We -ell, maybe, maybe not. For myself, I think a lot of it comes down to practicality - most of the womens' clothing that is perceived in this culture as 'sexy' is clothing that is highly impracticable for actually living or working in, if not actually restrictive (hobble skirts, anybody?). Weird, huh? And what does that say about our culture's images of female beauty? High heels just don't cut it for the active lifestyle - and. yes, it's possible to work in them and even to run (god knows, in my benighted youth I used to work ten plus hour shifts in heels and then walk the three miles home), but they're an inherently unstable and precarious base to operate from. Likewise, clothes that are too tight can make it difficult to move, long loose flowing clothes get caught in or dragged through things, short skirts aren't a lot of good for warmth and require a lot of careful manuevering in order to avoid accidental overexposure, corsets and girdles are frankly constrictive, etc, etcetera ad nauseum. Now, if you're dressing for an event or a life where you don't have to worry much about moving or safety or practicality, that's all peachy keen. But on a daily basis, I like to keep my options open and I want pockets in my clothes and I want to be comfortable. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for women who complain that their feet hurt after a day at work in heels - well, excuse me, but DUH! There's a pretty simple solution - don't wear the damned things. So, besides all the cultural baggage that goes with the image we choose to present to the world, there's this inherent impracticality issue as well. A person could have any number of finely tuned gray cells inside that pretty, tightly wrapped, and wobbly package, but that's certainly not what they're choosing to present. And, on some deep nasty little level of myself, I find it difficult to respect people who make that choice on a daily basis - at the very least I'm going to make some gross assumptions about their lack of common sense if they're wearing a clothes that don't fit the weather, or the job they're trying to do. Despite all this, I do agree wholeheartedly with Janice's statement: >But I certainly don't think that someone's appearance >grants or revokes permission for immoral behavior on the part of others. >The "she was asking for it" argument is reprehensible and all too common. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:30:30 -0600 Reply-To: lguerra@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: luz guerra Subject: Re: Sales and choices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote, in part: > > > > If determining what books get published is about dollars, shouldn't we be > making an effort to put our money where our philosophies are? To me, this > means buying the kinds of books we say we want to see more of, and doing so > at the kinds of stores that make them available. > > And, heck, while we're at it, why don't we all just agree to make all our > purchases from my store. ;) Okay, self-interest aside, I think we need a > number of sources for all sorts of SF: mainstream, small press, media > tie-in, magic realism, whatever. And I think this means supporting the > sources that offer them. > > My $.02. > lg: To add my two cents (hey, there's no more cents sign on the keyboard!!): I agree with you, Maryelizabeth. It's important to support independent booksellers who can't compete with the big booksellers or Costco/Sam's, etc. On the balance, it's hard to buy books when one is broke! I try to spread my money among the three smaller indies in my city, including the SF/Fantasy/Mystery store, the women's book store, and a bookstore specializing in African American books. For harder to find stuff, I shop at ssecond hand stores. I ain't no saint -- I DO buy discount store books sometimes.... but lately it's a question of triage: I've got $15 for a book purchase this week, how much do I want those smaller sellers I've counted on for the past decade to remain open? I get less book for my buck maybe, but I hope my $ helps keep the doors open.... luz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: Sales and choices -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Maryelizabeth--- You're right, I'd never find "The Moon..." at Costco, which is why I'm waiting for the paperback. I only buy mainstream bestsellers there (and I don't do that very often), because that's all they have really, since I don't pay to read Goodkind or Jordan. I do read other stuff than SF and fantasy :-) I don't see why I should have to pay more for books just because I work in publishing. If Costco discounts a book 50%, and B&N 30%, I'm going to buy it at Costco. I'm not rich (after all, I work in publishing!). But I do buy a lot of SF and fantasy books, probably more than many of my professional colleagues, so I'm doing my part. I just don't buy hardbacks very often. Debra >>> Maryelizabeth Hart - 11/11/97 11:59 AM >>> Debra commented, in part: >Re The Moon and the Sun: > >Congratulations on the great reviews and notice. I'm looking forward >to reading it when it comes out in paperback (Like a lot of people, I >hate to buy hardbacks unless they're $14 at Costco). Okay, I'll declare that I'm biased from the get go, but... I was surprised to interpret this as Debra advocating purchasing books at non-book warehouses. This seems to be directly in contradiction to her concerns about wanting to promote growth of non-media SF. Frankly, Debra, even if you wanted to, I don't believe you COULD buy _The Moon and the Sun_ at Costco or your local equivelant. However, it's likely you can pick up the new Timothy Zahn Star Wars novel. If determining what books get published is about dollars, shouldn't we be making an effort to put our money where our philosophies are? To me, this means buying the kinds of books we say we want to see more of, and doing so at the kinds of stores that make them available. And, heck, while we're at it, why don't we all just agree to make all our purchases from my store. ;) Okay, self-interest aside, I think we need a number of sources for all sorts of SF: mainstream, small press, media tie-in, magic realism, whatever. And I think this means supporting the sources that offer them. My $.02. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:05:35 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <19971110235232.50843@puma.macbsd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Allen Briggs wrote: >> Heinlein most certainly >> did not intend to satirize the military. > >Having just finished my re-read of the novel, I can't imagine why I >ever thought that he might be. I've also concluded that this book >doesn't have any female characters of note, and that the movie does >do a tremendous job in updating it for the 90's. I'm not sure that >Heinlein would agree with the changes, though. ;-) At least not at >the time of his writing the novel. > >The book does challenge my political/humanist/judicial sensibilities >significantly, though, and I haven't quite figured out just why I >have problems with his proferred ideology or how to articulate them. >Anyway, I feel that any book that makes me think is a good book, so >I guess this one passes that muster. Did the movie challenge your sensibilities too? I submit that if the book is challenging, and the movie is merely fun, then it's *not* "updated", but violated. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:13:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: ST/TFW In-Reply-To: <199711111048.KAA03669@rockdmz1.geis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I don't know Orson Scott Card, but I am well acquainted with Joe Haldeman. I asked him about _Forever War_ and _Starship Trooper_, and he replied: >Neil, I've always been emphatic in saying that TFW was _not_ a response >to _Starship Troopers_. TFW was my war novel and ST was Heinlein's. > >Of course I read ST before I wrote TFW, and of course it affected me -- but >so did _The Red Badge of Courage_ and _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ and >_The Naked and the Dead_ and _The Red and the Black_ and god knows >what else. > >With the movie out, I've had several people say they know that I said >TFW was a response to ST. In fact, that's an assertion that critics have >been making for over 20 years, and although I've been denying it for >the same length of time, it keeps cropping up. > >I very much respected Robert Heinlein, and although we disagreed -- >extremely! -- on political matters, he was too much of a gentleman to >let that get in the way of friendship. I cherish the memories I have >of the few times we were together, and I think that he more than any >other author was responsible for my becoming a science fiction writer. >It bothers me to see myself presented, in print, as his enemy. Our >relationship was warm and mutually respectful. > >Joe > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:04:08 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: X-Files Marina, I love the X-files despite its many faults. Unfortunately, I am not real impressed yet this season. My roommate fell asleep during the season premiere (sp?), and I almost did. I hope the season picks up, but like you I was quite disappointed in the scenario you have depicted (she is helpless and he is the "hero"). I have heard it is the last season, but there is a movie coming after the end of the season. Penny > I know a lot of people don't like TV sf, but for those who do: What do > you think of the new X-files season? > > I was kind of hoping that with death of her partner, agent Scully will become > the center of the action. I am glad Moulder is alive (I like him a lot), but > I was dissappointed that they reversed the roles again to more traditional > scenario -- she's lying in coma, and he's risking his life to save her. > Bringing in religion again, in my opinion is not a very great idea, > either. It does not offend me, but I think it does not belong there. But > in general, I think this season is going to be interesting. > > Marina > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:14:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Me, I try to dress as often as possible the way I'd like to be dressed in case of an earthquake. I want to be warm, very mobile, and able to assist others as easily as possible in the case that I am able. I remember the day I was walking home from work in a hobble skirt and high heels, being followed in a car by a jerk. Even after taking off my shoes, I could barely move the way I REALLY wanted. At the time, it was basic office attire for women and I had not expected to have to walk home. And what about nylons? So difficult to maintain in a "run-less" fashion amoungst file cabinets, drawers, tables. . .etc. Trying to Not run the things restricts movement. Argh. . . women's clothes, #@$! They cost more, cover less and are not very durable (not to mention a pain to clean). I always notice the clothing of women in movies and SF shows, movies and books. If they are dressed scantily amoungst men who wouldn't get cold in a snowstorm, I don't usually read or watch further, unless I suspect a revolution. In _Woman on the Edge of Time_, the people would wear a piece of scanty (very thin) erotic clothing for special occasions made of algae or some similar material. I believe they called it a "flimsy." It was made to be used once. During other times, they wore utilitarian, attractive clothing according to their wishes, I believe. (I am working off a memory 5+ years old. I don't gave my copy, having loved, lent, and lost it). Lindy Teragram wrote: > > We -ell, maybe, maybe not. For myself, I think a lot of it comes > down to practicality - most of the womens' clothing that is perceived in > this culture as 'sexy' is clothing that is highly impracticable for > actually living or working in, if not actually restrictive (hobble skirts, > anybody?). Weird, huh? And what does that say about our culture's images > of female beauty? > > Now, if you're dressing > for an event or a life where you don't have to worry much about moving or > safety or practicality, that's all peachy keen. But on a daily basis, I > like to keep my options open and I want pockets in my clothes and I want to > be comfortable. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:26:44 -0500 Reply-To: "Jason A. Wallwork" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jason A. Wallwork" Subject: Klingons on ST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Klingons on Star Trek: TNG and ST: DS9 are played by both Caucasians and Blacks. John Tesh (ET) for example has guest-starred although he didn't have any lines. Jason A. Wallwork >NH: On the original Star Trek, yes, I know this. But on TNG? That's >the one to which I was referring. It's actually hard to tell under all that >makeup. > >-nalo > >On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Becca Stoler wrote: > >> > >> I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, originally, the Klingons >> were played by Caucasian and Hispanic actors, not African-American. Sorry, >> just had to straighten that out. >> >> Becca >> > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:24:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tonya Browning Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Since no one's really mentioned it, I want to note that one of the (many) things that really bothered me about the film Starship Troopers was the portrayal of people of color. If you're black in this movie, you either quit boot camp, get your arm fried off so a white boy can gladly take your command, or fall on a bomb to help save aforementioned white boy. If you're Asian or Hispanic, you're basically backdrop and if you're from Buenos Aires (like the four major characters in the film), you're white. I'm sick of extrapolated films that still believe the world will be white three hundred years from now (which isn't true of our present world). Sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm just tired of these kind of "oversights." At least I got to watch a preview of a new Chow-Yun Fat movie before ST. tonya ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:21:03 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: feminist dystopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Misha Yes, there is a third - _The Furies_ and she is currently working on a fourth. In the UK _The Furies_ is published by The Women's Press. Joan > > Charnas' two (is there a 3rd? I'll try and find it) works that Robin is > thinking of are "Walk to the End of the Earth" and "Motherlines" that I > read bound together into one volume. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:22:59 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: Sales and choices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth said: > And, heck, while we're at it, why don't we all just agree to make all our > purchases from my store. ;) Okay, self-interest aside, I think we need a > number of sources for all sorts of SF: mainstream, small press, media > tie-in, magic realism, whatever. And I think this means supporting the > sources that offer them. > This is always assuming that we have the budgets to support them. Joan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:39:11 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Becca Stoler wrote: > I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, originally, the Klingons > were played by Caucasian and Hispanic actors, not African-American. Sorry, > just had to straighten that out. What was it that Worf said about the change in "Trials and Tribblations"? "It's something we don't talk about with outsiders!" Actually, the trend towards black actors as Kilngons seems to have started with Worf, especially looking at some of the notable actors who played Klingons on screen (for example, Christopher Lloyd and Christopher Plummer). Has anyone noticed that the female Klingons, however, tend to be played by white actors? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:19:05 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tonya Browning wrote: > I'm sick of extrapolated films that still believe the world will be white > three hundred years from now (which isn't true of our present world). > Sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm just tired of these kind of > "oversights." As a white man who lives in Detroit (and has for 20 years), and is attempting to figure out how the world will react to a (potential, as of now) child of European and Filipino stock, I agree completely. Verhoven probably thought he'd throw two or three minorities in there for flavor...I can't remember: does Heinlein actually go into the ethnic make-up of his characters? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:29:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Since no one's really mentioned it, > portrayal of people of color. That's an interesting point. As a white male, I didn't notice it and thinking back, don't remember the colors of the people. Moving Rico, Carl, and Carmencita to Buenos Aires was a movie change, BTW, from the book. I think they were from North America in the book, but the political boundaries of Earth is unclear (and immaterial) in the book. There is talk of an Russo-Anglo-American Alliance war with the Chinese Hegemony. That got a little chuckle out of me... I don't recall a single thing about race in the book. There is some talk about people from other planets having some different physical characteristics, but nothing about different Earth races. One could argue that full-integration was assumed, or that all-caucasian was assumed. I don't believe it was an issue. The more I think about it (and my wife actually put it into words), the novel aspect of the novel is there primarily as a vehicle to illustrate the author's convictions. > At least I got to watch a preview of a new Chow-Yun Fat movie before ST. We got that one, too. All Asians are butt-kicking martial artists or shopkeepers, right? ;-) Neil: A lot of the effect of the book was lost for me in the movie, but I don't know what others would have thought. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:35:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: l schmeiser Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I'm sick of extrapolated films that still believe the world will be white >three hundred years from now (which isn't true of our present world). wasn't it Richard Pryor who commented that he got nervous watching movies about the future because there were no minorities in them? The one exception I can think of off the top of my head is the late, unlamented "Event Horizon," where both the captain and the chief engineering wizard were people of color. back to lurking ...lisa -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The diva's in beta: http://www.hotwired.com/staff/diva/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:40:36 +0000 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tonya Browning wrote: > > Since no one's really mentioned it, I want to note that one of the (many) > things that really bothered me about the film Starship Troopers was the > portrayal of people of color. If you're black in this movie, you either > quit boot camp, get your arm fried off so a white boy can gladly take your > command, or fall on a bomb to help save aforementioned white boy. I feel compelled to point out that the Supreme Commander who pulls the Fed's fat out of the fire is a black woman, and a black woman survives with Rico and Carmen at the end. I didn't do a body count, but there were lots and lots of white folks who fried too. And did you think Diz was all that white? She looked less white than Rico and Carmen at any rate. Oy, this give me a headache. My Mexican relatives run the gamut from very Aztec-looking to very German-looking, and they're all in the same family. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:44:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Emma Bull to read/speak (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:00:35 -0500 (EST) From: Lewis E. Murphy To: iafa-l@ebbs.english.vt.edu Subject: Emma Bull to read/speak For those living close to Atlanta, Emma Bull will be appearing at Emory University on Nov 19th & 20th. She will be reading on the 19th at 7:30pm (Room 303 Geosciences) and there will be a Colloquium on Nov. 20th at 4pm (Faculty Dining room, DUC). The event is the first in a series called "Women Writers of Genre Fiction". I don't know if there is a charge, or how 'open' to the public this is. For more info, call (404) 727-2000, or e-mail ahepbur@emory.edu This has been a quasi-public service announcement. Be seeing you, Lewis ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:18:33 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Happy news from Tulane university MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I just heard this from my boss.... Octavia Butler will be the Zale-Writer-In-Residence (an annual program where a woman writer comes in for a week) for Fall 1998. *online jumping up and down in joy* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If we are about to enter cyberspace, the first thing we have to do is plant the divine in it." -- Mark Pesce Kate Bolin http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin Dymphna http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin/dymphna Delenn Deserves Better http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/9060 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:34:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Klingons on ST Comments: To: "Jason A. Wallwork" In-Reply-To: <01bceecf$5d46e720$6cdbcecd@JSheridan.Babylon5> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: I *know* that. That's why I used qualifiers such as 'seems' and 'many of'. -nalo On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Jason A. Wallwork wrote: > Klingons on Star Trek: TNG and ST: DS9 are played by both Caucasians and > Blacks. John Tesh (ET) for example has guest-starred although he didn't have > any lines. > > Jason A. Wallwork > > > >NH: On the original Star Trek, yes, I know this. But on TNG? That's > >the one to which I was referring. It's actually hard to tell under all > that > >makeup. > > > >-nalo > > > >On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Becca Stoler wrote: > > > >> > > >> I see what you are saying, and I agree. However, originally, the > Klingons > >> were played by Caucasian and Hispanic actors, not African-American. > Sorry, > >> just had to straighten that out. > >> > >> Becca > >> > > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:55:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: feminist dystopias In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Michelle Bernard wrote: > > Charnas' two (is there a 3rd? I'll try and find it) Yes. It's called "The Furies". The theme is - after the revolution, now what? Will there be a reign of terror? Can some of your old oppressors be more trustworthy than your old comrades-in-arms? works that Robin is > thinking of are "Walk to the End of the Earth" and "Motherlines" that I > read bound together into one volume. I didn't read "Motherlines" as a > dystopia, but that's probably because I read it on the heels of the > first and by comparison it was positive. Yes, and did anybody notice how it was about, among other things, slavery? And its affect on the freedwomen? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:01:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Teragram wrote: > move, long loose flowing clothes get caught in or dragged through things, But they sure are warm, and I found out with the SCA just how practical long skirts really are for doing what a bear does in the woods. MUCH more practical than jeans! PS - the SCA Rennies tell me that their backs ache a lot less after a long day in the field when they wear corsets or boned bodices or doublets than without. I haven't tried it yet,b ut I wonder if they have a point? Men used to wear tight waistcoats for doing manual labor in the 18th century - was there a reason for that? Speaking of sexual objectification, I'd hate to be a man wearing late 15th century men's garb! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:12:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Comments: To: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" In-Reply-To: <3468A196.53F@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > Verhoven probably thought he'd throw two or three minorities in there > for flavor...I can't remember: does Heinlein actually go into the ethnic > make-up of his characters? > Yes he does, in exhaustive detail. Every human breed seems to be represented - Lieutenant Jelal is Turkish, for instance. In some cases he doesn't say - as with Breckenridge, who I've always pictured as African-American. And the leading character is Filipino.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:10:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tonya Browning wrote: > > Since no one's really mentioned it, I want to note that one of the (many) > things that really bothered me about the film Starship Troopers was the > portrayal of people of color. Which is really false to Heinlein's vision!!! If you're black in this movie, you either quit boot camp, Which recruit was this? Not Breckenridge, I hope! (In the book) get your arm fried off so a white boy can gladly take your > command, or fall on a bomb to help save aforementioned white boy. I remember Johnny taking command when someone was killed, I forget from whom. (In the book). If > you're Asian or Hispanic, you're basically backdrop WHAT?!?!?!? Johnny, Carmen, Dizzy etc were most specifically Hispanic. and if you're from > Buenos Aires (like the four major characters in the film), you're white. Unca' Bob isn't whirling in his grave. He's throwing up. > I'm sick of extrapolated films that still believe the world will be white > three hundred years from now (which isn't true of our present world). The director's European. What can I say? !@#$%^&*()_+_)CENSORED< BLEEP. > Sorry if this sounds like a rant, I'm just tired of these kind of > "oversights." You, me, and the Heinleins. The book made a POINT out of the totally multicultural MI!!! At least I got to watch a preview of a new Chow-Yun Fat > movie before ST. > > tonya > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:23:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: Re: Happy news from Tulane university Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > I just heard this from my boss.... >Octavia Butler will be the Zale-Writer-In-Residence (an annual program >where a woman writer comes in for a week) for Fall 1998. > > >*online jumping up and down in joy* That's definitely very cool. I doubt I can top that [;)] but Samuel Delany is supposed to be speaking here at Wayne State in December. Erik Erik Tsao Department of English Wayne State University Detroit, MI "like bigger thomas i didn't want to love but what i loved for. i am." -- Sonia Sanchez (From _I've Been A Woman: New and Selected Poems_. Chicago, IL: Third World Press, 1985. p. 78.) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:21:46 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: feminist dystopias Another, older feminist or sort-of feminist dystopia is Katharine Burdekin's 'Swastika Night', written in the 1930s but republished by a feminist press more recently, about the misogynistic outcome of a Nazi triumph--women kept as breeding animals. Probably a touch homophobic by modern standards however? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:41:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Teragram wrote: > >> move, long loose flowing clothes get caught in or dragged through things, > > But they sure are warm, and I found out with the SCA just how practical >long skirts really are for doing what a bear does in the woods. MUCH >more practical than jeans! > PS - the SCA Rennies tell me that their backs ache a lot less after a >long day in the field when they wear corsets or boned bodices or >doublets than without. I haven't tried it yet,b ut I wonder if they have >a point? Men used to wear tight waistcoats for doing manual labor in the >18th century - was there a reason for that? > > Speaking of sexual objectification, I'd hate to be a man wearing >late 15th century men's garb! > Aw, you don't like your Ren-faire garb? Is the bodice to tight? Just being sarcastic. Although the long skirts are indeed useful, if you don't trip over them, and with the bodice pushing everything up, it makes a great place to keep your money... ;) Becca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:54:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Yes he does, in exhaustive detail. Every human breed seems to be > represented - Lieutenant Jelal is Turkish, for instance. In some cases > he doesn't say - as with Breckenridge, who I've always pictured as > African-American. And the leading character is Filipino.> Jeez. I completely missed all of that--except for the reference to Tagalog/Espanol and some of the names. Must not be important to me. :) I'm not sure if I'd say "exhaustive detail". Then again, I don't form pictures of characters, usually. Unless someone brings it to my attention, I tend to work without mental pictures of characters' physical details unless there's some kind of handicap. I'm the same way in real life... I offer my apologies for my earlier misinformation. -allen -- Allen Briggs - end killing - briggs@macbsd.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:32:32 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Race in this: I recall reading somewhere, something by Delany, in which he says that any qualms about the political agenda of the book for him were over-ridden by RAH just casually dropping in some indication, well into the book, that the viewpoint figure was black? I vaguely remember from my own very distant reading two characters talking about what language they speak 'at home', and in neither case is this English (in one it's Tagalog): it's not clear whether the countries concerned are part of the then USA or whatever (the exact political system is something I've long forgotten, or whether there are enclaves of immigrants within it). Which seems to imply, if perhaps not very forcefully, some kind of multi-ethnicity, with English as a kind of lingua franca. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:17:37 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: brain cells Maryelizabeth wrote Only if one believes the recent study that (IIRC) states that men have something like 40,000 more brain cells than women. And no one has determined what they might be used for, or whether they are used at all. :) (the extra 40,000, y'all!) Recent? This sounds like all those pompous old Victorian scientists with their callipers measuring skull capacity! The last position I heard on this was that women's brains were larger in proportion to their bodies (generally smaller than men) than men's. As for the extra 40,000 cells, it reminds me of the old brain-transplant joke: 'and the Prime Minister's brain is £10,000: because it's never been used' Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:49:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > But they sure are warm, and I found out with the SCA just how practical >long skirts really are for doing what a bear does in the woods. True enough, as far as it goes. But I've also seen people catch the edge of their dress in the fire, or drag their sleeves through food at these affairs - especially as the revelry progresses into the wee hours. > PS - the SCA Rennies tell me that their backs ache a lot less after a >long day in the field when they wear corsets or boned bodices or >doublets than without. I haven't tried it yet,b ut I wonder if they have >a point? Men used to wear tight waistcoats for doing manual labor in the >18th century - was there a reason for that? Think of the lower back braces worn by many people who work loading or unloading merchandise - you know, those stylish elastic and velcro numbers with the cute shoulder straps. They help support the lower back and decrease flexibility to the point that it becomes hard to lift things the wrong way. On the other hand, they're meant to be worn all the time, and they're not meant to be so tight that you can't breathe properly....... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:05:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nalo Hopkinson Subject: Re: Klingons on ST Comments: To: "Jason A. Wallwork" In-Reply-To: <01bceee7$5cc98ce0$5bdbcecd@JSheridan.Babylon5> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NH: Apologies Jason, I did snap. I thought that my original statement alluded to what I already know, (that actors of all races play Klingons). Quite likely I wasn't clear enough; wouldn't be the first time. -nalo On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Jason A. Wallwork wrote: > NH: > > > >NH: I *know* that. That's why I used qualifiers such as 'seems' and > >'many of'. > > > I was only making a comment. How am I supposed to know what you already > know? I made an opinion just as you did...:) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jason A. Wallwork, Kawartha Computer Club President > E-mail: jsheridan@bigfoot.com > KCC Homepage: http://www.thekcc.org > "It is in vain to hope to please all alike. Let a man stand with his face > in what direction he will, he must necessarily turn his back on one half > of the world." -George Dennison Prentice > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:06:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Happy news from Tulane university In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 16:23 11-11-97 -0500, Erik Tsao wrote: > >That's definitely very cool. I doubt I can top that [;)] but Samuel Delany >is supposed to be speaking here at Wayne State in December. > Give him my regards if you meet him. I've been trying to get in touch with him for years but without any success. We were classmates in high school and very good friends back then. He'll remember me. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:26:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Quotation Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD This is a signature of someone on this list - I can't remember who. Who is PKD? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:48:36 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats Hey Ho! I agree with you completely on this subject. I have a grandmother who tells me of her torturous bouts with anklet straplets and 15 inch heels...she walked to work about 10 miles every day. Her feet are so bunioned up and her back is completely knackered. I don't advocate wearing heels. Also I guess if you wear them forever you can manuever in them, and they can hurt when jammed into a criminals eye or groin, but running...well I don't think so. I like Pockets, I like to be able to sit with my legs up or sprawled and not worry about flashing me knickers :} Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Teragram Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 11:17 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] High heels and hard hats Susan Palwick wrote: >Okay, I'm going back into Devil's Advocate mode: why can't a strong, >liberated woman wear tight clothing and high heels if she wants to? And >some lesbians *like* being femme, y'know? > > But the outside >of the package has no correlation with the number of gray cells inside. >Right? We -ell, maybe, maybe not. For myself, I think a lot of it comes down to practicality - most of the womens' clothing that is perceived in this culture as 'sexy' is clothing that is highly impracticable for actually living or working in, if not actually restrictive (hobble skirts, anybody?). Weird, huh? And what does that say about our culture's images of female beauty? High heels just don't cut it for the active lifestyle - and. yes, it's possible to work in them and even to run (god knows, in my benighted youth I used to work ten plus hour shifts in heels and then walk the three miles home), but they're an inherently unstable and precarious base to operate from. Likewise, clothes that are too tight can make it difficult to move, long loose flowing clothes get caught in or dragged through things, short skirts aren't a lot of good for warmth and require a lot of careful manuevering in order to avoid accidental overexposure, corsets and girdles are frankly constrictive, etc, etcetera ad nauseum. Now, if you're dressing for an event or a life where you don't have to worry much about moving or safety or practicality, that's all peachy keen. But on a daily basis, I like to keep my options open and I want pockets in my clothes and I want to be comfortable. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for women who complain that their feet hurt after a day at work in heels - well, excuse me, but DUH! There's a pretty simple solution - don't wear the damned things. So, besides all the cultural baggage that goes with the image we choose to present to the world, there's this inherent impracticality issue as well. A person could have any number of finely tuned gray cells inside that pretty, tightly wrapped, and wobbly package, but that's certainly not what they're choosing to present. And, on some deep nasty little level of myself, I find it difficult to respect people who make that choice on a daily basis - at the very least I'm going to make some gross assumptions about their lack of common sense if they're wearing a clothes that don't fit the weather, or the job they're trying to do. Despite all this, I do agree wholeheartedly with Janice's statement: >But I certainly don't think that someone's appearance >grants or revokes permission for immoral behavior on the part of others. >The "she was asking for it" argument is reprehensible and all too common. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:59:37 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: X-Files Marina: I think that religion does have its place on the series because it is the one think that Scully has and will again believe in...that parallels Mulder's belief in the "little green men>" She has faith in religion while Mulder believes something less conventional. I think that really also explains the two views...while Mulder seeks the unconventional "truth" Scully seeks the conventional. remember in "revelations" Scully was the only one to believe, while Mulder was the skeptic. I must admit that I have avidly watched the "x-files" from day one, but was really getting sick and tired of this last season. I think that with the mythology getting so important, the other cases seem to detract from it. Especially the Scully has a brain tumor business. In one episode she has blood dripping from her nose, and the next episode she's running around like a woman possessed. I was a little disappointed with the "cliffhanger" episode this season, because anyone and everyone who follow the show knows that they filmed a movie for release next summer. NOW how can you have an X-files movie with two dead stars? Not a cliffhanger, just a dud. I like the way the character Scully is developing, she isn't so 2-D "You cannot really believe it Mulder>' "There is a logical explanation mulder..." I could go on...I think she needs more development so she doesn't sound like she's on rewind. Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of MARINA YERESHENKO Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 10:13 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] X-Files I know a lot of people don't like TV sf, but for those who do: What do you think of the new X-files season? I was kind of hoping that with death of her partner, agent Scully will become the center of the action. I am glad Moulder is alive (I like him a lot), but I was dissappointed that they reversed the roles again to more traditional scenario -- she's lying in coma, and he's risking his life to save her. Bringing in religion again, in my opinion is not a very great idea, either. It does not offend me, but I think it does not belong there. But in general, I think this season is going to be interesting. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:01:50 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Quotation Question In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 15:26 11-11-97 -0800, Pamela Bedore wrote: > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of >words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people >who must use the words." > PKD > > >This is a signature of someone on this list - I can't remember who. Who >is PKD? > The quote sounds like it's from George Orwell. Here's a similar one: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. In your heart, you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." --George Orwell Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:19:10 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Quotation Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:26 PM 11/11/97 -0800, you wrote: > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of >words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people >who must use the words." > PKD > > >This is a signature of someone on this list - I can't remember who. Who >is PKD? > > My venture is that PKD is Philip Kindred Dick (I just translated an article on him for _Extrapolations_, so I'm freshly overflowing with new readings--and it certainly sounds like something he would say). But certainly, Humpty Dumpty came up with it first. ;) Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:13:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenn Subject: Re: feminist dystopias In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maryelizabeth wrote: >We might include the recent _The Misconceptionist_ by Lucy Ferrer. Very >similar themes to _Handmaid's Tale_. > Just in case anyone is looking for the novel, I think the title is "The Misconceiver" and the author is Lucy Ferriss. It's definitely a dystopia in the vein of Handmaid's Tale, and very well written (check out the graphic depictions of abortion) but not quite as gripping as Atwood's work. Might have been better as a novella. BTW, I'm Jenn. I'm a writer who's usually too tired (read: lazy, undisciplined) from working as a college reference librarian and desktop publisher to actually write anything. Dystopias are a particular interest of mine. Right now I'm working my way through the Native Tongue series. I'm enjoying all your comments/rants/reading suggestions. -Jenn ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:40:49 -0500 Reply-To: Unca-lloyd@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: LLoyd McDaniel Subject: Re: Quotation Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit uh.... that "PKD" wouldn't have been Phillip K. Dick would it... sounds like some of his (very good), stuff... LLoyd ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:06:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nina wrote: > It may not be as frequent, Maryelizabeth, but it does happen! I've >read "regular SF" since I was a little girl, and will read media tie-ins >if they are well-written and if the particular film or TV series >interests me. And if I like the tie-in author's work, I _always_ look >around the bookstore on my next visit to see what else that author has >on the shelves. That's how I found Vonda's books - and Alan Dean >Foster's, to name just two authors who inhabit my shelves with both >tie-ins and non tie-ins. I'm not questioning your experiences as a >bookseller, but I am wondering if I can possibly be such an >oddity...(although come to think of it, just being an SF lover makes me >one to family and friends!). > >Nina Osier > Nina: You may just be the exception that proves the rule. :) I know there are others out there like you, but in my experience, you are in an unfortunate minority. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:05:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Quotation Question In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971111193015.404f6394@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" That would be me, and most of you are correct, Philip K. Dick of the shifting realities fame. He has been one of my all time favorite authors for over twenty years now. Bill At 08:19 PM 11/11/1997 -0500, you wrote: >At 03:26 PM 11/11/97 -0800, you wrote: >> "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of >>words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people >>who must use the words." >> PKD >> >> >>This is a signature of someone on this list - I can't remember who. Who >>is PKD? >> >> >My venture is that PKD is Philip Kindred Dick (I just translated an article >on him for _Extrapolations_, so I'm freshly overflowing with new >readings--and it certainly sounds like something he would say). But >certainly, Humpty Dumpty came up with it first. ;) > >Heather >=) > > >hmaclean@kent.edu >http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean > > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://idt.net/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:23:52 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Sales and choices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Maryelizabeth said: > >> And, heck, while we're at it, why don't we all just agree to make all our >> purchases from my store. ;) Okay, self-interest aside, I think we need a >> number of sources for all sorts of SF: mainstream, small press, media >> tie-in, magic realism, whatever. And I think this means supporting the >> sources that offer them. >> >This is always assuming that we have the budgets to support them. > >Joan Joan: Youbetcha. And for those who don't, please support the local library and give them more reason to buy and maintain what you like in their SF section. My emphasis was not just to encourage people to buy books, since hardly anyone I know (me included) has the finances to keep up with her book desires, but to encourage people to *consider the source* when buying them. Case in point: we only usually buy 2 copies of bestsellers because we know they will be widely available and widely discounted. However, we need those few copies for those customers who are in the financial position to buy from us at a limited discount in order to support the store as a whole. Okay, who knows the correct wording on the quote something like: "When I have money, I buy books. If there is anything left over, I buy food and clothing."? 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:53:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: patricia johnston Subject: Heinlein / Revolt 2100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, The only novel (so far) I`ve read by Heinlein is Revolt in 2100. I liked it,,,,,and the women in this novel are treated IMO as being totally equal. The women can commit acts of sabotage with "the best of em". This has spurred me on to read other books by him, and Starship Troopers is next on the list. Probably will not see the movie, as I do not like Hollywood movie extravegances. Someone quoted a line from the movie, "a good bug is a dead bug". I come from a horticulture/integrated pest management background, and a "good bug", is a necessary bug. So keep that in mind the next time you start nuking the bugs in your gardens. When I want a good sf/movie hit I plunk Metropolis into my vcr. The hero, Maria, wants to change the conditions of the workers by arbitration and non-violent means. She is almost thwarted by the evil scientist. (A great movie for silent movie buffs) Patricia. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:50:38 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: feminist dystopias -- The Misconceiver Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jenn pointed out: >Just in case anyone is looking for the novel, I think the title is "The >Misconceiver" and the author is Lucy Ferriss. It's definitely a dystopia >in the vein of Handmaid's Tale, and very well written (check out the >graphic depictions of abortion) but not quite as gripping as Atwood's work. > Might have been better as a novella. > >BTW, I'm Jenn. I'm a writer who's usually too tired (read: lazy, >undisciplined) from working as a college reference librarian and desktop >publisher to actually write anything. Dystopias are a particular interest >of mine. Right now I'm working my way through the Native Tongue series. >I'm enjoying all your comments/rants/reading suggestions. > >-Jenn H, Jenn: Mea culpa, and without any good excuse, either. Wait, that wasn't me, that was my evil twin!! ;] 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:52:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bill Sansbury Subject: Re: Quotation Question (additional In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971111200504.007a7320@pop3.idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" When I first found this quote I was sure that Dick was either quoting Chomsky or paraphrasing him, but I haven't been able to find it in any of my Chomsky, Bill "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." PKD grok@idt.net http://idt.net/~grok/ bsans@wam.umd.edu http://www.wam.umd.edu/~bsans ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:02:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: SF comics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Heather commented: >I must have missed Julien's question... In France, SF bandes dessinees, or >BD (pronounced /behdeh/) for short, are a *huge* market--I would venture to >say (unsupported by any harder data than my general impressions) that SF BD >sell more than actual SF books. > >Oh, and has anyone seen Delany's collaborative comic? Way fun... > >Heather >=) > > >hmaclean@kent.edu >http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean Thanks, Heather. I would have been more accurate to note that my observations were based on my experience with US comics. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:04:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: general apology Comments: To: Science Fiction and Fantasy Listserv , DorothyL@listserv.kent.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Apologies for any missent mail or oddly addressed messages over the past few days. My server is either experiencing problems, or there is a malignant entity in my Mac. 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: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:12:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Comments: cc: Jean Lamb In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I just listed every character in Heinlein's book and learned several things: 1) He never said whether anyone was black or white. 2) The most prominent nationality was Hispanic - Johnnie, Carmen, Dizzy, Major Rojas (who Carmen was to report to -also referred to as "Miss Rojas"), Johnnie's father Emilio - Aunt eleanora was Argentinian so presumably Johnnie's mother was, too - Bennie Montez, and Lts Do Campo & Cunha, Lt. Silva, and Navarre. 3) Asian - Sgt Ho, who recruited Johnnie & co; recruit Shujumi, son of Colonel Shujumi; Capt Chandar (?), Clyde Tammany, 2nd Lt Sukarno, Capt Chang. 4) Middle Easterners: Sgt "Jelly Jelal," Turkish. Cadet "Sally" Saloman. Hassan "The Assassin", who took a cut in rank to go to OCS. Lt Abe Moishe. 5) Native American: Cadet Bearpaw. 6) Dead that we know of: Dizzy Flores (on the ground), Kitten Smith (never got out of the tube), Al Jenkins, Lt. Rasczak, PfC Dutch Bamberger, cadet Byrd; many others. Under Miscellaneous is Sgt Migliaccio, who is also a Catholic priest; Navy Captain Yvette Deladrier - possibly French. Lt. Colonel Jean V. DuBois "prissy, scornful, a dancing-master type, not one of us apes" - is certainly French by culture as well as surname. Major Xera - sounds Bajoran if you ask me. 2nd Lt. N'Gam - no idea what nationality that is. The lack of inclusiveness was due to our beloved Dutch director, not Heinlein! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu Obsessive-compulsive? Who, mE? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:23:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Quotation Question (additional Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:52 PM 11/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >When I first found this quote I was sure that Dick was either quoting >Chomsky or paraphrasing him, but I haven't been able to find it in any of >my Chomsky, >Bill > "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of >words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people >who must use the words." > PKD Humpty Dumpty sez ('in a rather scornful tone'): 'When -I- use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you -can- make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.' Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:33:49 -0500 Reply-To: Unca-lloyd@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: LLoyd McDaniel Subject: Re: Sales and choices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth; I don't know the wording on that quote, but you ought to try "Bibloholism" (I'd tell you the author but a friend has the bookl...), that is full of stuff like that. wonderful stuff.... LLoyd and if you REALLY want to depress 'em tell 'em the TRUTH about distribution, makes Publishers look generous..... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:50:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Quotation Question (additional MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >At 08:52 PM 11/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >>When I first found this quote I was sure that Dick was either quoting >>Chomsky or paraphrasing him, but I haven't been able to find it in any of >>my Chomsky, >>Bill >> "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of >>words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people >>who must use the words." >> PKD > >Humpty Dumpty sez ('in a rather scornful tone'): > >'When -I- use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more >nor less.' >'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you -can- make words mean so many >different things.' >'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.' > >Heather Gods, I love Alice in Wonderland! "Beware the Jabberwock my son" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:45:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandra MacLaren Subject: Re: yet another thread I agree. Years after I read The Handmaids Tale, I still find it to be one of the most frightening books I've come across. Mostly because it appeared to be not so much fiction, but a commentary on what is happening now. And the more I watch C-SPAN, and what happens in the House and Senate, the more current Margaret Atwood's tale becomes. Re: gift-giving; I remember that it was difficult for me to talk to men for weeks after I finished reading the book, and the same was true for many other women I talked to. I usually recommend the book with some cautionary advise. As for the men I've talked to who have read the book, I've found that they just didn't get it. I'm interested in this "new thread"; and would like to know how others feel. Sandi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 01:12:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In a message dated 97-11-11 14:36:20 EST, Geoffrey Sperl wrote: > Actually, the trend towards black actors as Kilngons seems to have > started with Worf, especially looking at some of the notable actors who > played Klingons on screen (for example, Christopher Lloyd and > Christopher Plummer). Has anyone noticed that the female Klingons, > however, tend to be played by white actors? > > - Geoffrey They also tend to be made up with lighter complexions than male Klingons, much like it is difficult for African-American women to be considered "beautiful" (i.e. actresses and models) unless they are fairly light in complexion. I've seen an interview with Tyra Banks in which she talked about how hard it was for her to break through in modeling because she kept losing jobs to African-descent models (since not all models are American) with lighter complexions than hers. Just food for thought.... Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:20:20 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: high heels, comics, (some SF) In a message dated 97-11-11 11:04:24 EST, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > >Barbara Benesch > >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: > > >As well as reading science fiction, I have a weakness for comic books > >(particularly DC superhero-type comics), and I've always maintained that > >Superman wouldn't be quite so "super" if he had to do all his heroing in > high > >heels like Wonder Woman and other female superheroes do. There has, > however, > >been a larger number (okay, 2-3 as opposed to zero a few years ago) of > female > >superheroes who wear non-high heeled boots with their costumes. > > Barbara: > > Not to pick nits, but I thought WW actually wears sandals, something like > Mercury's. Could be mistaken. Actually, what I always worry about with > Wondy, and a number of other female Super Heroes (and some males in their > recent incarnations) is how they can see in battle with all that gorgeous > hair falling in their faces. :) > > Since you are also a comics reader, what do you think about SF in comics? > (I think Julien was the original poser of that question) Wonder Woman these days is wearing the boots, although I admit sometimes the boots are drawn as flats. I guess for a while in the '70s she wore the sandals you mention (in fact, *the* Sandals of Hermes), but for the most part nowadays she wears the boots. She does, however, wear sandals when she's "out of uniform" on Themyscira (Paradise Island). When she was wearing The Sandals of Hermes, it was because that particular version of the character wasn't able to fly on her own, and in fact was a far less powerful hero than she is now. Recently (until Superman's costume and powers changed, and prior to changes in Wonder Woman within the last couple of months [see below]), in the DC Universe she was second in power only to Superman. For those interested, actually, about two or three months ago, DC killed Princess Diana of Themyscira (in a creepy coincidence, the issue came out within a week of the death of Princess Diana of Wales, and the cover art was a newspaper headline proclaiming "Princess Diana is dead"). The mantle of Wonder Woman seems to have been picked up by her mother, Hippolyta, and Diana herself has been lifted to Mount Olympus as the newly-created Goddess of Truth. I personally am kind of upset by this development, as it seems like yet another marketing ploy by DC, much like the "Death of Superman" a few years ago (who, wonder of wonders, came back), and the "breaking" of Batman, who also recovered and came back. As far as the hair, I agree. Both the hair and the capes (how exactly *does* Batman keep swinging around Gotham without the cape tangling in his line?), are often "somehow" flowing in just the right direction without getting in the hero's (please, everyone take that as gender-neutral, which is how I mean it when I say it) way. However, fewer and fewer heroes wear capes these days, just like more female superheroes are in flat shoes. There are always the throwbacks, like the female superhero whose hair was approximately twice as long as she was tall, and she wore it in a ponytail that was always swirling dramatically around her, and yet she never pulled it or tripped over it!! Regarding SF in comics, I know of few "true" SF comics, although most comics do contain many SF elements, including missions in space, amazing scientific advances, and plenty of time travel. I can't remember what else was addressed in the original question, but I am interested in further discussion if anyone else is. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:41:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In a message dated 97-11-11 12:34:51 EST, David Christenson wrote: > Seven's costume seems logical to me - she would have little or no clue > that it's "sexy," and a tight-fitting costume is probably practical for > crawling through Jeffries tubes. However, this bothers me: why would a > Borg have breasts? Borg babies are nursed by machines, and the Borg were > never squeamish about removing unneccessary body parts to make room for > more machinery. I agree that a long, flowing outfit would not work for most of the work that goes on on a starship, but something a bit less tight, and including a few pockets would seem to me to be far more practical. What, for instance, is she supposed to do if in the course of working on something she removes the Star Trek equivalent of a bolt and doesn't want it rolling away? Anyway, my real reason for replying to this is that I too am bothered by the idea of a Borg with breasts. My major complaint with the "Generations" movie was the so-called Borg Queen (why was it the first obviously female Borg we saw was not only evil, but overtly sexual?). Not only was the face of one of the original Borg largely untouched, but for some reason was also interested in using sex to manipulate others!? (Why is it that in movies in the last few years, the "evil" women are always trying to use sex to capture the bad guy, or are [within the world of the movie] sexual deviants? I know it's happened before, but has it really started up again in the last few years, or has it been going steady all along and I've just been slow to notice? Wait, that's a rant for another time, so I guess that's my cue to finish this up.) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:51:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peggy Hamilton Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Enoch's Vision wrote: > > At 16:23 10-11-97 -0800, Peggy Hamilton wrote: > >Enoch's Vision wrote: > >> Dax was the worst example that TVGuide could have given. I like her but > >> that is probably just visceral and shallow of me. However, she is male in > >> gender, or perhaps 'mental sex' is a better phrase. She is very nearly a > >> satire. Captain Sisko still addresses her as "Old Man" to remind us of her > >> nature. Is the message that a woman has to be guided by an internal and > >> worldly wise male to be truly strong? Or is she a parody, mixed message, or > >> simply a badly-conceived character? > > > >How about that sex is a function of the body you are currently > >inhabiting, and that percieved "gendered" behaviors are cultural > >add-ons. > > I agree with that definition. Sex and gender don't always coincide. Sex is > defined in biological terms primarily while gender is often defined in > social and other behavioral terms. Jazdia Dax is wonderfully archetypal in > a sense because she illustrates that we all contain elements of both > genders. It would be really interesting to write a Jungian-type essay about > her. If she is an illustration that we all contain elements of both genders, then why did you say her "mental sex" was male? What about her behavior or attitudes are you defining as male? Peggy Hamilton ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:54:36 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: brain cells In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have to say that I find it extremely difficult to imagine how anyone could detect an "extra" 40,000 brain cells, even as an average, considering that the average brain contains 100 BILLION neurons. There is considerable evidence to indicate that what's important is the number of connections rather than the number of neurons, but frankly I don't think anybody knows enough about the brain to say, "If X [=brain cells, connections, bla bla bla], then Y [intelligence, empathy, bla bla bla]." Vonda >Maryelizabeth wrote >Only if one believes the recent study that (IIRC) states that men have >something like 40,000 more brain cells than women. ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda Some official good news at http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:28:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Armstrong Subject: Black Klingons, Green Hornets, Earthy Catwomen (Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Nov 1997 to 11 Nov 1997) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >NH: Amen! My impression (and I'm quite prepared to be found wrong on >this) is that for awhile, TNG Klingons were largely played by black >people. Hmm. Apparently, we make it into the future, but we're still >cast as the universe's rude boys. I never saw it that way. On the contrary, I thought it was incredibly exciting the first time I saw them clearly showing us both "white" Klingons and "black" Klingons. Wow, finally TV showed us an alien species with more than one ethnicity! OTOH, what's your take on a very early TNG episode which had a bunch of black aliens visit the ship dressed in stereotypical African costumes. It makes me squirm with embarrassment just remembering it. (if I remember it right -- it must be, what, 11 years ago now?) >promo spot for re-runs of Green Hornet. The voice-over >said, "Starring Bruce Lee in one of his first roles." Didn't realise >that had been Bruce Lee. Made me wonder if part of the reason he got the >role was because his Asianness could be largely disguised by the mask he >wore. He was unambiguously Asian, but that was okay, because his role was secondary, a sort of Man Friday to the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Green Hornet. (The difference being that the actor who played Green Hornet has since been forgotten). >Remember Eartha Kitt as catwoman? Didn't she also start out >masked and with her body and hair covered? LOL, for an instant I read that as "with her body hair covered"! I'm afraid I can't remember Eartha as Catwoman -- just Julie Newmar. >-nalo -- Susan A. Susan Armstrong * Vancouver, Canada * anariska@mortimer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:47:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Black Klingons, Green Hornets, Earthy Catwomen (Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Nov 1997 to 11 Nov 1997) In-Reply-To: <10280304603639@mortimer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ? > >LOL, for an instant I read that as "with her body hair covered"! >I'm afraid I can't remember Eartha as Catwoman -- just Julie Newmar. > >>-nalo > >-- Susan A. > >Susan Armstrong * Vancouver, Canada * anariska@mortimer.com What's "LOL" mean? -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:17:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: Star Trek Women & Starship Troopers In-Reply-To: <34696DF8.71EE@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 00:51 12-11-97 -0800, Peggy Hamilton wrote: >Enoch's Vision wrote: >> social and other behavioral terms. Jazdia Dax is wonderfully archetypal in >> a sense because she illustrates that we all contain elements of both >> genders. It would be really interesting to write a Jungian-type essay about >> her. > >If she is an illustration that we all contain elements of both genders, >then why did you say her "mental sex" was male? What about her behavior >or attitudes are you defining as male? > I feel that the portrayal of Dax's character is skewed more toward a stereotypical male character. Ideally, there is no reason why a female character cannot indulge in swashbuckling, martial arts, playing poker, partying all night, drinking bouts with Klingons (if that turns them on), or possess fierce strength, be the Science Officer etc. Those behaviors are gender-loaded in popular entertainment, not in my head. The description of the wedding episode in this week's TVGuide tends to support this idea. My son has already lost the issue so this is just from memory. The expanded description of the Dax/Worf wedding episode pointedly described Dax as acting stereotypically male. It mentioned a wild bachelor party and "mother-in-law" problems as examples. Major Cliche Alert! It went on to contrast her with Worf who was portrayed as a caricature of a bride. The entire blurb was smarmy and demeaning to everybody (in my view). So I think that DS9 portrays her as "male" and I feel that the show does it in a clownish way. Rather than see any deep message in that, I just ascribe it to shallow entertainment values. To me, she is as cartoonishly two-dimensional as Quark. I don't see any deep messages in DS:9, just catering to a low common denominator of pop entertainment. I see missed opportunities. But face it, this isn't Shakespeare, it's Hollywood. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:15:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: brain cells In-Reply-To: <34757ccd.724489218@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > I have to say that I find it extremely difficult > to imagine how anyone could detect an "extra" > 40,000 brain cells, even as an average, > considering that the average brain contains 100 > BILLION neurons. Well, the miracles of modern science are astounding, though I am hesitant to accept this statistic without support as well. I recenctly read (In scientific american I think) that there is evidence that Many forms of learning disabilities (dsylexia etc) might be caused by an excess of brain cells. Apparently the human brain sloughs off a big region of brain cells (in the back of the head I think) as a fetus that are not discarded in many LD people. I will have to look for the exact reference, but raises some interesting questions with regards to the usefullness of brain cells (and of course the relationships between intelligence and LD). It might also account for a the difference we are referring to. I think I read that there are more LD males than females, so it could be that when you average it all out... One of the things I get really peeved about is when people mis-interpret averages and statistics in part because it happens so much. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:28:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: yet another thread In-Reply-To: <971112004224_1759902809@mrin52.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Sandra MacLaren wrote: > Re: gift-giving; I remember that it was difficult for me to talk to men for > weeks after I finished reading the book, and the same was true for many other > women I talked to. I usually recommend the book with some cautionary advise. > As for the men I've talked to who have read the book, I've found that they > just didn't get it. With all due respect, I don't think you've been talking to the right men. The handmaids tale seemed almost too obvious too me. You didn't have to dig for meaning, no siree. It was very strong and very distrubing. It is the type of book that would send one into an incoherent rage, looking for the nearest christian fundamentalist to punish, er, or is that just me. The people who don't get this must be so thick they were not touched by _Where the Red Fern Grows_ or _The Yearling_ (I have met people, even women who have admitted to as much), are extremely prejudiced in some way (be it against sci-fi, women, whatever), or didn't really read the book. I can think of no other way to "miss" this book. Oh yeah, just thought of another one, it did touch them, but rather than accepting that they automatically "put up their shields" and shut off those parts capable of responding. A sort of emotional defense mechanism of some sort. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:27:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: >I agree that a long, flowing outfit would not work for most of the work that >goes on on a starship, but something a bit less tight, and including a few >pockets would seem to me to be far more practical. What, for instance, is >she supposed to do if in the course of working on something she removes the >Star Trek equivalent of a bolt and doesn't want it rolling away? Well, isn't that something of a problem with all the ST costumes? I confess I've given up watching over the past few years, but aren't they all only functional *looking*, but actually require another person's assistance for things like getting out of them to use the facilities? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:27:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Christopher Shaffer Subject: Re: yet another thread In-Reply-To: <971112004224_1759902809@mrin52.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Sandra MacLaren wrote: > Re: gift-giving; I remember that it was difficult for me to talk to men for > weeks after I finished reading the book, and the same was true for many other > women I talked to. I usually recommend the book with some cautionary advise. > As for the men I've talked to who have read the book, I've found that they > just didn't get it. I'm curious to know what the men you talked to said about Handmaid's Tale that gave you this impression. I would think a person would have to be pretty dense to not "get it." ----- I'm going to be dead for billions and billions of years. If I don't make a fool of myself on a regular basis, I'll feel like I've wasted my life. Chris Shaffer shaffer@uic.edu http://www.uic.edu/~shaffer/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:29:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: >Anyway, my real reason for replying to this is that I too am bothered by the >idea of a Borg with breasts. My major complaint with the "Generations" movie >was the so-called Borg Queen (why was it the first obviously female Borg we >saw was not only evil, but overtly sexual?). Not only was the face of one of >the original Borg largely untouched, but for some reason was also interested >in using sex to manipulate others!? > >(Why is it that in movies in the last few years, the "evil" women are always >trying to use sex to capture the bad guy, or are [within the world of the >movie] sexual deviants? I know it's happened before, but has it really >started up again in the last few years, or has it been going steady all along >and I've just been slow to notice? Wait, that's a rant for another time, so I >guess that's my cue to finish this up.) > Barbara: can you cite some specifics? Guess I'm just as glad to have been missing many movies since the arrival of my 3 year old. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:33:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: brain cells Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I have to say that I find it extremely difficult >to imagine how anyone could detect an "extra" >40,000 brain cells, even as an average, >considering that the average brain contains 100 >BILLION neurons. > >There is considerable evidence to indicate that >what's important is the number of connections >rather than the number of neurons, but frankly I >don't think anybody knows enough about the brain >to say, "If X [=brain cells, connections, bla bla >bla], then Y [intelligence, empathy, bla bla >bla]." > >Vonda Vonda: Well, I admit I do not have the email I originally got the info from any more, so my post was undoubtedly subject to flaws from my memory. And, IIRC once again, no conclusions had been speculated on the function of the extra cells. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:08:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeanine Pedersen Subject: Re: feminist sf list Comments: To: ChrBug@muze.com Yes, it's an open list -- the posting address is FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU, unfortunately I can't remember what the sign on address is. It is moderated, there certainly seem to be plenty of male correspondents if that's a concern, and for the most part I tend to be a lurker myself! The moderator, as I recall, is a librarian at the University of Illinois at Chicago so you might be able to call her directly. Good luck finding the sign-on address, but actually if you just post to the list, someone might be able to give it to you. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:23:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeanine Pedersen Subject: Re: Apologies Just call me fumble fingers. In trying to reply to someone who asked me for the address of this list, I inadvertently posted to it -- of course this is after having posted to the SF List serve a message meant for this list server. If any one has the sign on address for signing on to this list I would appreciate having it forwarded to me or if you are also on the SF List server, just post it there. I have gotten quit a few requests for it. Thanks & my apologies for taking up your time. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:33:55 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: general apology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > My server is either experiencing problems, or there is a > malignant entity in my Mac. Mac's can't have malignant entities...unless you're using Microsoft products. :) - Geoffrey, on his PowerMac 6500/225 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:35:05 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: feminist sf list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" FeministSF - a list for fans, writers, activists and scholars to discuss feminist science fiction. The list owner is Laura Quilter (lauramd@uic.edu). For more information about Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopian literature, please check out the femsf web pages at http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/ -------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THE FEMINIST SF, FANTASY & UTOPIA LISTSERVE Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, Marge Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, and many others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other writers like them? The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for discussion of this literature. It is a mailing list, which means that every email will go to all subscribers mailboxes. It is a primarily unmoderated list, which means that I will not be selecting or censoring comments. People can ask whatever questions they want about the topic, with one broad exception. Because I have been on many listserves relating to feminism which have inspired anti-feminists to harass other members, or engage the entire listserve in discussions about the nature, purpose, etc., of feminism, I wish to make it clear from the outset that this listserve is for discussion of the literature. Discussion of feminism as a philosophy belong on a feminist discussion group. Discussion of feminism, as it pertains to literature or particular works of literature, is perfectly appropriate. I will remove people from the listserve who behave in an inappropriate manner after one warning. These rules are subject to change when we see how they work! This list began 3/2/97. -------------------------------------------------- Subscribing and Unsubscribing Use the online subscription request to subscribe only or send a message to: listserv@listserv.uic.edu and in the body of the message type: subscribe feministsf Your Name or unsubscribe feministsf Conversing with Fellow Participants To send a note to the discussion list and all its participants: send a message to: feministsf@listserv.uic.edu and in the body of the message type: Whatever your message is -------------------------------------------------- Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:29:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: feminist dystopias In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I need encouragement to read "Walk to the End of the Earth." I read "Motherlines" about a month ago and thoroughly enjoyed it (although I had some difficulty with the mating with horses part - but at least that's a more practical solution than a lot of femscifi novels where two women just emotionally connect and have their eggs spontaneously split). So I ran out and got WTTEOFE and, maybe it's the cover (woman in chains on her knees - macho guys hovering above her), maybe it's just too depressing to read of a world not so far off from our own, but......the book is sitting on my nightstand, week after week, while I whiz through a dozen other books. Will this book depress me? Laura >Charnas' two (is there a 3rd? I'll try and find it) works that Robin is >thinking of are "Walk to the End of the Earth" and "Motherlines" that I >read bound together into one volume. I didn't read "Motherlines" as a >dystopia, but that's probably because I read it on the heels of the >first and by comparison it was positive. >misha > >>---------- >>From: Robin Reid[SMTP:Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 8:55 AM >>To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >>Subject: [*FSFFU*] feminist dystopias >> >Suzy McKee Charnas' _Motherlines_ trilogy (and those titles have escaped >>me totally, but I think all three are in print) are all dystopias that >>explore similar ideas and territory as THT. >> >>Robin >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:51:22 -0500 Reply-To: "Jason A. Wallwork" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jason A. Wallwork" Subject: Re: feminist sf list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------------------------------------------- And now for today's tip... FEMINIST SCIENCE FICTION Men and women discuss sci-fi books like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and newer tales such as Elisabeth Vonarburg's, The Maerlande Chronicles. For the most part, dissection of characters and plots suffices, but more general threads on themes and goals of the authors appear. Certainly thoughtful, everyone has an opinion. There are five to ten posts a day. To subscribe, send a message to Listserv@listserv.uic.edu and type subscribe feministsf and your name in the body of the message. ---------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Jeanine Pedersen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] feminist sf list >Yes, it's an open list -- the posting address is FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU, >unfortunately I can't remember what the sign on address is. It is moderated, >there certainly seem to be plenty of male correspondents if that's a >concern, and for the most part I tend to be a lurker myself! The moderator, >as I recall, is a librarian at the University of Illinois at Chicago so you >might be able to call her directly. Good luck finding the sign-on address, >but actually if you just post to the list, someone might be able to give it >to you. > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:45:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: <199711101609.LAA08655@smtp2.erols.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cheers to all of you who support the idea of a strong and intelligent woman coming in a sexy package! I myself (although I am certainly no 7 of 9) am a tall, busty, pretty blonde who gets sick of having to cover my body just to avoid dealing with the kind of prejudice I'm seeing displayed on this list (on this topic). On the other hand, if I meet someone during a period of my life where I'm dressing attractively and doing my hair and wearing some make-up, I inevitably get to hear about how SURPRISED the person is to discover I have strength and intelligence. It's very tiresome. (Which is why I only have periods of my life when I choose to put in this effort. Not that it stops the constant commentary from people who feel it's completely appropriate to be discussing my breast size. And women are WAY worse than men on this topic!) I'm sick of women's sexuality being either stifled or defined by one narrow view of what a woman's sexuality entails. It's like our entire culture is inflicted with a Madonna/Whore Complex. That is, if a woman chooses to display her beauty/sexuality, she's free game for criticism, even by FELLOW WOMEN! What's so scary about our sexuality? And, for the record, although I no longer wear high heeels (except maybe when I go "in drag" to the company Christmas party or something), when I did wear them, I was perfectly capable of running in them - even four-inchers! In fact, I wore high heels throughout my entire pregnancy. And I never experienced any pain or discomfort. On the other hand, when I see a woman running after whoever in heels, I'm the first to laugh! As for Seven of Nine......SIGH. I find her VERY attractive! So attractive, in fact, that, after having already bought a copy of TV Guide with Dax on the cover, and then receiving an identical copy in the mail 'cuz my subscription suddenly kicked in, I STILL went out and bought the cover with Seven of Nine on it! (Wish I could manage her hairdo!) I can't WAIT for the dyke subplot to kick in, although I'm disappointed to hear that the storyline may revolve around some kind of "experimentation." I want her to choose to be with women because we're so damn wonderful! :-) And I still want to hear what one poster meant by "delayed adolescence." (grumble grumble) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 09:47:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Now you're talking my major heroine/crush/role model when I was a >little girl. Mmmmeeeeoooowwww!> I am SO with you on this one! There's a woman whose sexuality either sends a shiver up one's spine - from delight or fear! Are you familiar with her jazz recordings? I have this AWESOME picture of her a good twenty years or so before "Batman" - she was STUNNING! Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:53:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Black Klingons, Green Hornets, Earthy Catwomen (Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Nov 1997 to 11 Nov 1997) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Sean Johnston To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Black Klingons, Green Hornets, Earthy Catwomen (Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 10 Nov 1997 to 11 Nov 1997) >? >> >>LOL, for an instant I read that as "with her body hair covered"! >>I'm afraid I can't remember Eartha as Catwoman -- just Julie Newmar. >> >>>-nalo >> >>-- Susan A. >> >>Susan Armstrong * Vancouver, Canada * anariska@mortimer.com > >What's "LOL" mean? > >-Sean > >"Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in >STNG: Conspiracy > Laughing Out Loud. unlike ROTFL which is rolling on the floor laughing Becca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:02:24 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Bernard Subject: Re: feminist dystopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, it's not a happy book, but I wouldn't call it depressing, especially since you've already read Motherlines (Aldara's "afterlife" so to speak). Then again, there was a kind of hope in the book not necessarily borne out in the sequel. I read them one right after the other in a single volume, so in a sense it was the same book for me (and had a different cover). misha >Laura Wigod: >I need encouragement to read "Walk to the End of the Earth." I read >"Motherlines" about a month ago and thoroughly enjoyed it (although I had >some difficulty with the mating with horses part - but at least that's a >more practical solution than a lot of femscifi novels where two women just >emotionally connect and have their eggs spontaneously split). > >So I ran out and got WTTEOFE and, maybe it's the cover (woman in chains on >her knees - macho guys hovering above her), maybe it's just too depressing >to read of a world not so far off from our own, but......the book is >sitting on my nightstand, week after week, while I whiz through a dozen >other books. > >Will this book depress me? > >Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:06:25 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: yet another thread MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Shaffer wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Sandra MacLaren wrote: > > > Re: gift-giving; I remember that it was difficult for me to talk to men for > > weeks after I finished reading the book, and the same was true for many other > > women I talked to. I usually recommend the book with some cautionary advise. > > As for the men I've talked to who have read the book, I've found that they > > just didn't get it. > > I'm curious to know what the men you talked to said about Handmaid's Tale > that gave you this impression. I would think a person would have to be > pretty dense to not "get it." I'm backing Chris up on this one. Either you were talking to jocks...no, bad stereotype, forgive me...either you were talking to men who just don't enjoy reading and exploring a book or you were talking men who listen to Rush and Howard Stern in the morning while having two eggs, a slice of ham, and some amazingly weak American coffee (sorry, all...I was spoiled by being in an English dept. with a great amount of Europeans who introduced to me what real coffee is like). To go and color that men just don't get it is rather inflammatory, no? - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:13:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: feminist sf list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Darn -- meant to post this to the SF-Lit list. Ooops. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:36:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MaryLou Subject: Re: feminist sf list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms0D5E0A86543C8F6BCA4BBF75" This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms0D5E0A86543C8F6BCA4BBF75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the info I received when I signed on (yes, I'm a lurker) Mary Lou Welcome to FeministSF - a list for fans, writers, activists and scholars to discuss feminist science fiction. Your list owner is Laura Quilter (lauramd@uic.edu). To unsubscribe, mail a message to: listserv@listserv.uic.edu and in the body of the message type: unsubscribe feministsf If you have any problems contact the list-owner. For more information about Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopian literature, please check out the femsf web pages at http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/ --------------ms0D5E0A86543C8F6BCA4BBF75 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIIQqwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIQnDCCEJgCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC DxkwggpjMIIJzKADAgECAhBATY9X1Pcu26HWCmap4UfsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMGIxETAP BgNVBAcTCEludGVybmV0MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE0MDIGA1UECxMrVmVy aVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSAtIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlcjAeFw05NzA3MjAwMDAw MDBaFw05ODAxMTkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDjERMA8GA1UEBxMISW50ZXJuZXQxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTQwMgYDVQQLEytWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIC0gSW5kaXZpZHVh bCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvQ1BT IEluY29ycC4gYnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk2MSYwJAYDVQQLEx1EaWdpdGFsIElEIENs YXNzIDEgLSBOZXRzY2FwZTEXMBUGA1UEAxMOTWFyeUxvdSBDcm91Y2gxITAfBgkqhkiG9w0B CQEWEm1jcm91Y2hAbW5zaW5jLmNvbTBcMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA0sAMEgCQQCx8/58gjjP UNk+0cnPfnY99zfvMgnMp04Dbdk/tYZOa/UfwRiLnaS3+92QFlZ+a3SYXwdvddQTB5fZ+9E3 4129AgMBAAGjggeuMIIHqjAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMIICHwYDVR0DBIICFjCCAhIwggIOMIICCgYL YIZIAYb4RQEHAQEwggH5FoIBp1RoaXMgY2VydGlmaWNhdGUgaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGVzIGJ5IHJl ZmVyZW5jZSwgYW5kIGl0cyB1c2UgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgc3ViamVjdCB0bywgdGhlIFZlcmlT aWduIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gUHJhY3RpY2UgU3RhdGVtZW50IChDUFMpLCBhdmFpbGFibGUg YXQ6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFM7IGJ5IEUtbWFpbCBhdCBDUFMtcmVx dWVzdHNAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tOyBvciBieSBtYWlsIGF0IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuLCAyNTkz IENvYXN0IEF2ZS4sIE1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcsIENBIDk0MDQzIFVTQSBUZWwuICsxICg0MTUp IDk2MS04ODMwIENvcHlyaWdodCAoYykgMTk5NiBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAgQWxsIFJpZ2h0 cyBSZXNlcnZlZC4gQ0VSVEFJTiBXQVJSQU5USUVTIERJU0NMQUlNRUQgYW5kIExJQUJJTElU WSBMSU1JVEVELqAOBgxghkgBhvhFAQcBAQGhDgYMYIZIAYb4RQEHAQECMCwwKhYoaHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvQ1BTIDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4Aw NgYJYIZIAYb4QgEIBCkWJ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L0NQ UzCCBIcGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQSCBHgWggR0Q0FVVElPTjogVGhlIENvbW1vbiBOYW1lIGluIHRo aXMgQ2xhc3MgMSBEaWdpdGFsIApJRCBpcyBub3QgYXV0aGVudGljYXRlZCBieSBWZXJpU2ln bi4gSXQgbWF5IGJlIHRoZQpob2xkZXIncyByZWFsIG5hbWUgb3IgYW4gYWxpYXMuIFZlcmlT aWduIGRvZXMgYXV0aC0KZW50aWNhdGUgdGhlIGUtbWFpbCBhZGRyZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBob2xk ZXIuCgpUaGlzIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGluY29ycG9yYXRlcyBieSByZWZlcmVuY2UsIGFuZCAK aXRzIHVzZSBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBzdWJqZWN0IHRvLCB0aGUgVmVyaVNpZ24gCkNlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gUHJhY3RpY2UgU3RhdGVtZW50IChDUFMpLCBhdmFpbGFibGUKaW4gdGhlIFZlcmlT aWduIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkgYXQ6IApodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb207IGJ5IEUtbWFp bCBhdApDUFMtcmVxdWVzdHNAdmVyaXNpZ24uY29tOyBvciBieSBtYWlsIGF0IFZlcmlTaWdu LApJbmMuLCAyNTkzIENvYXN0IEF2ZS4sIE1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcsIENBIDk0MDQzIFVTQQoK Q29weXJpZ2h0IChjKTE5OTYgVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gIEFsbCBSaWdodHMgClJlc2VydmVk LiBDRVJUQUlOIFdBUlJBTlRJRVMgRElTQ0xBSU1FRCBBTkQgCkxJQUJJTElUWSBMSU1JVEVE LgoKV0FSTklORzogVEhFIFVTRSBPRiBUSElTIENFUlRJRklDQVRFIElTIFNUUklDVExZClNV QkpFQ1QgVE8gVEhFIFZFUklTSUdOIENFUlRJRklDQVRJT04gUFJBQ1RJQ0UKU1RBVEVNRU5U LiAgVEhFIElTU1VJTkcgQVVUSE9SSVRZIERJU0NMQUlNUyBDRVJUQUlOCklNUExJRUQgQU5E IEVYUFJFU1MgV0FSUkFOVElFUywgSU5DTFVESU5HIFdBUlJBTlRJRVMKT0YgTUVSQ0hBTlRB QklMSVRZIE9SIEZJVE5FU1MgRk9SIEEgUEFSVElDVUxBUgpQVVJQT1NFLCBBTkQgV0lMTCBO T1QgQkUgTElBQkxFIEZPUiBDT05TRVFVRU5USUFMLApQVU5JVElWRSwgQU5EIENFUlRBSU4g T1RIRVIgREFNQUdFUy4gU0VFIFRIRSBDUFMKRk9SIERFVEFJTFMuCgpDb250ZW50cyBvZiB0 aGUgVmVyaVNpZ24gcmVnaXN0ZXJlZApub252ZXJpZmllZFN1YmplY3RBdHRyaWJ1dGVzIGV4 dGVuc2lvbiB2YWx1ZSBzaGFsbCAKbm90IGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXMgYWNjdXJhdGUgaW5m b3JtYXRpb24gdmFsaWRhdGVkIApieSB0aGUgSUEuMIGGBgpghkgBhvhFAQYDBHgWdmQ0NjUy YmQ2M2YyMDQ3MDI5Mjk4NzYzYzlkMmYyNzUwNjljNzM1OWJlZDFiMDU5ZGE3NWJjNGJjOTcw MTc0N2RhNWQzZjIxNDFiZWFkYjJiZDJlODkyMDZiZDdiZTFkNTAzNGU5ZGE0YWI0MmZkZTM5 Nzc0MzUwGwYKYIZIAYb4RQEGBgQNFgs4NTIzNDk6TlJ2NDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQBj wfbQzSaljLYR01I9PRnNLAABicCVpVbq/ogGi4xjOGerr7vjGS5V4+HGHIYZhyptb+Hjpqm2 SLIhaUTNKAMOnQ7YrgryppaCqrrFs2jKgufL1QZzLXBtB+FeqjzlbdrCH+8lpP0z9XW6yChG MDWOyN6RxLeyuN7pT0xdOOEatzCCAnkwggHioAMCAQICEFIfNR3ycH4AK77KWYcE1TkwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcw NQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5 MB4XDTk2MDYyNzAwMDAwMFoXDTk5MDYyNzIzNTk1OVowYjERMA8GA1UEBxMISW50ZXJuZXQx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTQwMgYDVQQLEytWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENB IC0gSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC2 FKbPTdAFDdjKI9BvqrQpkmOOLPhvltcunXZLEbE2jVfJw/0cxrr+Hgi6M8qV6r7jW80GqLd5 HUQq7XPysVKDaBBwZJHXPmv5912dFEObbpdFmIFH0S3L3bty10w/cariQPJUObwW7s987Lrb P2wqsxaxhhKdrpM01bjV0Pc+qQIDAQABozMwMTAPBgNVHRMECDAGAQH/AgEBMAsGA1UdDwQE AwIBBjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQADgYEAwfr3AudXyhF1xpwM +it3T4dFFzvj0sHaD1g5jq6VmQOhqKE4/nmakxcLl4Y5x8poNGa7x4hF9sgMBe6+lyXv4NRu 5H+ddlzOfboUoq4Ln/tnW0ilZyWvGWSI9nLYKSeqNxJqsSivJ4MYZWyN7UCeTcR4qIbs6SxQ v6b5DduwpkowggIxMIIBmgIFAqQAAAEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQAwXzELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQLEy5DbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmlt YXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTk2MDEyOTAwMDAwMFoXDTk5MTIzMTIz NTk1OVowXzELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMTcwNQYDVQQL Ey5DbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MIGfMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDlGb9to1ZhLZlIcfZn3rmN67eehoAKkQ76OCWvRoiC 5XOooJskXQ0fzGVuDLDQVoQYh5oGmxChc9+0WDlrbsH2FdWoqD+qEgaNMax/sDTXjzRniAnN FBHiTkVWaR94AoDa3EeRKbs2yWNcxeDXLYd7obcysHswuiovMaruo2fa2wIDAQABMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAgUAA4GBAFJzuppV3Nw/gn2wkJhiKoJMdgBuJT3VwglwVwEMD3cfGKH7HGAOoHU7 SSFB/qdcLUxCSdP/KNiM6p3+yQfid4JTI95V885Ek/r6TL3KNvNbZrKeyPIMXl7UobQhCTPK O1n8ksI4/K3ZliTgLfqjKfUzaHhOtLyfaTXiqJiUczvEMYIBWjCCAVYCAQEwdjBiMREwDwYD VQQHEwhJbnRlcm5ldDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xNDAyBgNVBAsTK1ZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0EgLSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXICEEBNj1fU9y7bodYKZqnh R+wwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKB9MBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkF MQ8XDTk3MTExMjE4MzYzOVowHgYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMREwDzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDAjBgkq hkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUHsHbvgjG/5HsDe/nXPGme3SQOm0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEQCevy3OI G5ysta6jeKpOdpb/zJpxh54fb7f89n2cWu3US31NvRj4vV6ixMlfpUllP0B9rMW+Bq49sitv yhgkZvQ= --------------ms0D5E0A86543C8F6BCA4BBF75-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:32:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: <971112011218_1592733624@mrin44.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >They also tend to be made up with lighter complexions than male Klingons, >much like it is difficult for African-American women to be considered >"beautiful" (i.e. actresses and models) unless they are fairly light in >complexion. I've seen an interview with Tyra Banks in which she talked about >how hard it was for her to break through in modeling because she kept losing >jobs to African-descent models (since not all models are American) with >lighter complexions than hers. Have you seen the current cover of "Elle" magazine? (Or was it "Vogue"?) I was very happy to see a Very Dark Black Woman on the cover! Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:41:54 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Laura Wigod wrote: > Are you familiar with her jazz recordings? I have this AWESOME picture of > her a good twenty years or so before "Batman" - she was STUNNING! :) A lot of us still think Ms. Kitt is... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:10:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Replying to Messages In-Reply-To: <3469F736.DDD2704C@mnsinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm confused. Twice this morning, I've replied directly to posters in order not to waste bandwidth with my comments on Eartha Kitt and black models. In both instances, I made sure that the poster's email address followed "To:" as opposed to "FEMINISTST@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU." In both cases, my replies ended up posted to the list. My apologies to all! Am I the only one experiencing this problem? I've been posting to this list (and privately to members) for a long, long time and feel I know what I'm doing - this is the first time this has happened. Good thing I decided not to reply privately regarding all the insane posting on childcare! :-} Laura ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:47:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII << So, besides all the cultural baggage that goes with the image we choose to present to the world, there's this inherent impracticality issue as well. A person could have any number of finely tuned gray cells inside that pretty, tightly wrapped, and wobbly package, but that's certainly not what they're choosing to present. And, on some deep nasty little level of myself, I find it difficult to respect people who make that choice on a daily basis - at the very least I'm going to make some gross assumptions about their lack of common sense if they're wearing a clothes that don't fit the weather, or the job they're trying to do.>> For whatever it's worth, my femme friends (straight and gay) who like wobbly heels don't wear them to work when it's snowing: they wear sensible boots, and then change. Practicality and ornament needn't cancel one another out entirely. And I know plenty of women who wear frills and heels who can also hold their own *extremely* well in any business or intellectual discussion. They present their intelligence through what they say, not what they wear. And, on some deep nasty little level of myself, I find it difficult to respect people who'd respect me if I were wearing overalls and galoshes, but assume that I was a "bimbo" if I were wearing a ball-gown and sequinned slippers. In my book, that's suspiciously sexist . . . just my $.02! The point of my original post (which I must not have worded well, since so many people seem to have missed it), is that a particular woman's brain structure doesn't change according to what she's wearing. If I'm smart in galoshes, I'm smart in heels; if I'm an idiot in a strapless gown, donning overalls won't up my IQ any. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:59:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: Richard Belzer on X-Files Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just a note of interest to fans of _Homicide_ and _X-Files_. Richard Belzer's character from _Homicide_, Munch, will be doing a guest spot on _X-Files_ this Sunday. Should be fun. Erik Erik Tsao Department of English Wayne State University Detroit, MI "like bigger thomas i didn't want to love but what i loved for. i am." -- Sonia Sanchez (From _I've Been A Woman: New and Selected Poems_. Chicago, IL: Third World Press, 1985. p. 78.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:46:18 -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: Starship Troopers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > > Verhoven probably thought he'd throw two or three minorities in there > > for flavor...I can't remember: does Heinlein actually go into the ethnic > > make-up of his characters? > > > Yes he does, in exhaustive detail. Every human breed seems to be > represented - Lieutenant Jelal is Turkish, for instance. In some cases he > doesn't say - as with Breckenridge, who I've always pictured as > African-American. And the leading character is Filipino.> Speaking of media treatment of minorities... This is way off topic but I had to tell somebody... I just saw the most idiotic TV edit on "Die Hard With a Vengeance" on Fox tonight. Bruce Willis is forced by a mad bomber to stand on a Harlem streetcorner, naked, wearing a sandwich board with a racial slur on it. But on TV, they changed the racial slur (with computer tinkering I suppose) to the slogan "I Hate Everybody." So when a bunch of young black men attack him, they attack him for no good reason! Do they think it's better to slur African-Americans with a stereotyped portrayal than to use a slur word? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:40:35 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maryelizabeth is absolutely right. Star Trek uniforms never had pockets. That was why McCoy and Spock always carried purses on those "Let's send the whole pinnacle of the command hierarchy -- oh yeah and YOU, over there, yeah, the guy in the red shirt -- off the ship into danger" missions. I don't recall that Kirk ever carried one of those little equipment purses, but it's been a long time, as I never watch Star Trek reruns. Vonda On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:27:03 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >... >Well, isn't that something of a problem with all the ST costumes? ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:40:31 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: <199711110252.PAA087050879216740@mail.iconz.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jenny & all, (New Zealand is so beautiful!) Thanks for the kind words. I hope you like Moon & Sun. Is it available in NZ? I always thought I'd have to consider siding with the Empire, because at least in the Empire you didn't have to stay in purdah if you were a woman who wasn't a princess. That was the _only_ way I could explain the weird population dynamics of the background characters. (Never even mind the foreground characters.) Was also one of the reasons I was interested in taking on the challenge of my Star Wars novel -- to find some characters in the universe who weren't (by now) middleaged white guys. Vonda On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:45:59 +1300, Jenny Rankine wrote: >... > >A Star Wars aside - I can't get over how they managed to film a universe of >people including only about six women - and get away with it! ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:40:28 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Tie In Novels: The End of SF or the World as We Know It? -Reply In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Debra, Agreeing to disagree is good. We are both speaking, I think, from our perceptions of the situation... which is a little like arguing about religion, no? This message isn't meant to argue, just to expand a little on my perception of the subject. My take on the relation between the tie-in sf audience and the mainstream sf audience is that there almost isn't any. Tiny overlap. There's tons of mainstream sf out there -- but it seems to me that these days, none of it is being given the chance to succeed the way science fiction has always succeeded: by constant steady sales over years, if not decades. Books are whipped up onto the racks and whipped back off and pulped. New writers are whipped up onto the racks, told that if they can't "hack out a manuscript every nine months" they have no chance of a writing career, and whipped off into the recycle bin after a couple of novels. I'm curious if anyone has, or is willing to publicize, total sf sales? Not average sales per book, but total cumulative sales. I would be pretty surprised if that number were falling, but if it were I'd certainly admit error and retire from the lists. I think that media tie-in novels expand the total book-buying audience. What I'm not convinced of is that this has any effect (positive or negative) on the sales of mainstream science fiction. If we could get numbers, we wouldn't have to rely on belief. The slush pile: I wonder if the ease of production of 500 pages because of word processing has had a significant effect on the slush pile? Making it bigger and slushier? Who knows? Maybe that's just the nature of the beast. I edited an anthology many years ago (Aurora: Beyond Equality, an anthology of humanist sf stories -- which is usually described, to my bafflement, as "an anthology of sf by women," though it was almost exactly half and half when we published it, which was before Tiptree's true identity was known by anybody, including me) and we had to read 200 terrible stories to find 10 good ones. And many of the 200 terrible stories were by writers you've heard of -- I came away convinced that some writers see an announcement for an open anthology and immediately send out their battered bottom of the trunk stories just in case they might fool someone into buying them. Then there were the several that had as far as I could tell been written specifically to annoy me and my co-editor, paeans to misogyny. (Plus an extremely unpleasant letter from someone whose work I respect -- still, despite -- ridiculing the whole idea of the anthology... written in crayon.) I know of a number of writers who do stuff that is beautiful and _different_, and who can't get arrested even to the tune of a 2500-word spot in an sf magazine. Their rejections baffle me. (So do some of mine, which run to "This is too much for my readers," and "I understand that the point of the story is the whole point of writing the story, but if you'll completely change the point of the story, I'll buy it.") Traditionally, new writers have honed their skills writing short stories and short story editors have been willing to risk some of the experiments. I'm not convinced that's so true anymore. Question of idle curiosity -- do book editors read the magazines? Do they ever contact writers whose short work excites them and ask to see their first novel, or is that too risky? (I expect that it is, having, myself, been trashed repeatedly when I was young and foolish enough to think that strangers who asked me to comment on their unpublished novels realio trulio wanted to know what I thought -- beyond, of course, "This is the best thing since sliced bread, here's an introduction to my agent and a letter of instruction to the biggest editor in the field that will result in the publishing and bestsellerdom of this book!") More questions of maybe not-so-idle curiosity: One of the major refrains of this whole discussion -- including my participation -- is "I don't know..." Why _don't_ we know? Does DAW do market research? Does any publisher? Do they have any way of tracking how effective their ads are? Is anybody doing a "Got SF?" campaign? Is the profit margin of book publishing so low that nobody can afford any of this? How _can't_ they afford it? I mean, we have all heard, "I don't read sf because I'm not interested in space bimbos" or "I don't read sf because I hated science in high school" or "I can't understand it" or "it has all cardboard characters" or "cyberpunk instills in me a profound ennui" and we KNOW that if we could get the person to read a different sort of sf than whatever it was that gave them their first unhappy experience, they'd love it. The question is, how to get from "I don't know" to "There's something for everybody and here's how to find it." I'm not aware that anyone is even _trying_ to do that. Like I said, if I had a couple of megabucks, I'd give them to Eileen Gunn and let her make the attempt. Yours in cheerful disagreement, Vonda P.S. It's true that hardcovers are awfully expensive; but one problem in waiting for the paperback is that if the hardcover doesn't sell well, there may never _be_ a paperback. On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:36:42 -0500, Debra Euler wrote: >Vonda-- > >I wrote that original message, which was a bit of a rant of my own. >I'm sorry if ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:10:55 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Clay's Ark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Just finished reading Butler's Clay's Ark, the first Butler novel for me . I was quite surprised at how violent it was, and how badly she treated her protagonists. Am I being oversensitive? Is this characteristic of Butler? Anyway, I found the alien disease and its effects quite interesting, and I kept trying to fit it into some kind of feminist frame, but it wouldn't go. (Seemed like a sequel was possible - was there one?) -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:10:57 -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: high heels, comics, & Xena MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Mythos minutiae department: I have here an illustration of the cover from Wonder Woman #2, 1942, and the original Diana was most definitely wearing boots, not sandals. (And tossing a 300-pound gladiator over a six-foot wall.) I recall WW wearing groovy go-go boots in the late 60s and early 70s, too. BTW, I channel-surfed into a bit of Howard Stern's "interview" with Lucy "Xena" Lawless a while ago, and in those brief moments when Stern wasn't interrupting Lawless to blab about himself, I discerned that Lawless is under a lot of pressure to star in a Wonder Woman (or Xena) movie, but she won't do it because it would take up all her free months which she devotes to family, and she's got what she calls an "F.U." attitude about that kind of pressure. (Bravo.) -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:31:55 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: <34702b02.769092941@mail.oz.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Was also one of the reasons I was interested in >taking on the challenge of my Star Wars novel -- >to find some characters in the universe who >weren't (by now) middleaged white guys. > >Vonda Hmm...I b'lieve you've got Yoda and Lando Calrissian (sp?) -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:31:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sean Johnston Subject: Re: Clay's Ark In-Reply-To: <199711122310.SAA10758@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Just finished reading Butler's Clay's Ark, the first Butler novel for me >. I was quite surprised at how violent it was, and how badly she treated >her protagonists. Am I being oversensitive? Is this characteristic of >Butler? > >Anyway, I found the alien disease and its effects quite interesting, and >I kept trying to fit it into some kind of feminist frame, but it >wouldn't go. (Seemed like a sequel was possible - was there one?) >-- >David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > >"We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter She, in my experience, does tend to have her protagonists go through the ringer, but I should think most effective fiction would do the same. If we think it's a bit much and feel a sympathy for them, then to a certain extent the author's done her/his job in involving us. -Sean "Friendship must dare to risk. . .or it's not friendship." 'Picard' in STNG: Conspiracy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:49:35 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Star Trek Women In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII What I meant by "delayed adolescence" is that she has never been able to dres sup before in her life, so now she's trying on the entire package - makeup, heels, and all. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:06:13 -0600 Reply-To: lguerra@ibm.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: luz guerra Subject: Re: Clay's Ark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > Just finished reading Butler's Clay's Ark, the first Butler novel for me > . I was quite surprised at how violent it was, and how badly she treated > her protagonists. Am I being oversensitive? Is this characteristic of > Butler? > > Anyway, I found the alien disease and its effects quite interesting, and > I kept trying to fit it into some kind of feminist frame, but it > wouldn't go. (Seemed like a sequel was possible - was there one?) > -- > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter lg: David, I don't understand what you mean by treating her protagonists badly, could you explain? I think of Butler's work as important to feminist sf because her female characters are so truely portrayed in full human complexity. Alot of her work, such as Clay's Ark, presents a not-so-impossible-to-imagine near future where our society as we know it collapses. IMHO, the female characters don't necessarily have a feminist agenda: they are fighting to survive horrendous conditions and remain fully human. I don't know that there was a specific sequel to Clay's Ark (anyone?) although I remember I thought I saw some parallel themes with Patternmaster (it's been a while). luz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:55:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Replying to Messages/ appearances Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Laura: No problem with what's happened to you -- just too many messaged intended for SF-lit sent to FEMSF. :) And if you ever do don a Seven of Nine costume, can we get a JPG? :) 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:42:10 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit So, um, I was supposed to expand the place of ALL the token characters in all three movies? That's an awful lot to ask of one little book. It also isn't what I was asked to do. (And even then, I have to point out that Xaverri, among others, is clearly not Caucasian; and I made a number of non-human characters central -- Lusa the centaur child has the last line! -- as opposed to giving Luke and Han medals while Chewbacca gets to stand by and look on worshipfully.) I'm sorry you found the work inadequate. Maybe it's just another example of the failure of imagination I've been accused of recently. All I can say is I did the best I could in the time I had to do it in. (Which was half the time I expected and agreed to.) Vonda On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:31:55 -0600, Sean Johnston wrote: >Hmm...I b'lieve you've got Yoda and Lando Calrissian (sp?) > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:49:20 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Starship Troopers Although I agree with the auteur theory of filmmaking (that the filmmaker puts his/her undeniable stamp upon a film, like an author of a book) I do not believe that all of this blame should be heaped upon Verhoeven's shoulders. What about the scriptwriter? Didn't s/he adapt the script to film? We must also realize that in many cases...the director may not even be familiar with the original product. I have read of actors who read the original book for better character motivation, and the director or whatever powers that be step in and say "Hey snap out of it...this is a different script with different motivation." Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Pat Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 10:12 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Starship Troopers I just listed every character in Heinlein's book and learned several things: 1) He never said whether anyone was black or white. 2) The most prominent nationality was Hispanic - Johnnie, Carmen, Dizzy, Major Rojas (who Carmen was to report to -also referred to as "Miss Rojas"), Johnnie's father Emilio - Aunt eleanora was Argentinian so presumably Johnnie's mother was, too - Bennie Montez, and Lts Do Campo & Cunha, Lt. Silva, and Navarre. 3) Asian - Sgt Ho, who recruited Johnnie & co; recruit Shujumi, son of Colonel Shujumi; Capt Chandar (?), Clyde Tammany, 2nd Lt Sukarno, Capt Chang. 4) Middle Easterners: Sgt "Jelly Jelal," Turkish. Cadet "Sally" Saloman. Hassan "The Assassin", who took a cut in rank to go to OCS. Lt Abe Moishe. 5) Native American: Cadet Bearpaw. 6) Dead that we know of: Dizzy Flores (on the ground), Kitten Smith (never got out of the tube), Al Jenkins, Lt. Rasczak, PfC Dutch Bamberger, cadet Byrd; many others. Under Miscellaneous is Sgt Migliaccio, who is also a Catholic priest; Navy Captain Yvette Deladrier - possibly French. Lt. Colonel Jean V. DuBois "prissy, scornful, a dancing-master type, not one of us apes" - is certainly French by culture as well as surname. Major Xera - sounds Bajoran if you ask me. 2nd Lt. N'Gam - no idea what nationality that is. The lack of inclusiveness was due to our beloved Dutch director, not Heinlein! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu Obsessive-compulsive? Who, mE? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:53:44 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine I took a "Black Studies" course a few years ago, and the professor who was from Jamaica lamented the fact that magazines like "Ebony" and "Jet" still only employ models who are Anglo-looking with darker skin. If a woman's face has too many "ethnic" qualities, her beauty is suspect and she is not hired. It is also interesting to note that "older" women models are also being featured in magazines. However, the only think identifiably "older" or "mature" about them is their white hair. You have to hand it to this culture of ours don't you? I also cannot believe when you find models like Lauren Hutton or Lauren Bacall. Oh my they are in their 50's but look soooo good. Give me a break. They only good so good because they don't look like they've aged. SO much for empowerment of the aged. Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Barbara Benesch Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 12:12 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In a message dated 97-11-11 14:36:20 EST, Geoffrey Sperl wrote: > Actually, the trend towards black actors as Kilngons seems to have > started with Worf, especially looking at some of the notable actors who > played Klingons on screen (for example, Christopher Lloyd and > Christopher Plummer). Has anyone noticed that the female Klingons, > however, tend to be played by white actors? > > - Geoffrey They also tend to be made up with lighter complexions than male Klingons, much like it is difficult for African-American women to be considered "beautiful" (i.e. actresses and models) unless they are fairly light in complexion. I've seen an interview with Tyra Banks in which she talked about how hard it was for her to break through in modeling because she kept losing jobs to African-descent models (since not all models are American) with lighter complexions than hers. Just food for thought.... Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:58:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janine Maves Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats Bajorans have beautiful and practical clothes. During that period of ST TNG, there must have been a costumer who was truly original -- a creator of things that were very alien and very dignifying. This was also apparent in the episode when Jean-Luc enters a trance/dream state and lives a lifetime in a culture that had gone extinct -- the clothing and interiors were exquisite. You know, it is possible to effect change but refusing to purchase "dry clean only" clothing and shoes you wouldn't walk a mile in. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 02:59:59 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephen Smith Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine About the thread started about the evil females seducing the males...i have a good one for you...SPECIES> YOu cast a beautiful supermodel (from Sweden?) and get this voracious need to mate. Then you have a sexy body, that wants sex (and men want her too), and then she kills them. A kind of praying mantis if you will. You also have movies like "Basic INstinct" (written by the same jerk who scrawled Showgirls) in which women are sexy but off limits. The ice queen (pick?) syndrome I think it could be called (they are all blondes in these films by the way). I agree there have been quite a few recent films in which "sexy" (long legs, big you know the list) women kills their victims. Julien ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Maryelizabeth Hart Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 10:27 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: >I agree that a long, flowing outfit would not work for most of the work that >goes on on a starship, but something a bit less tight, and including a few >pockets would seem to me to be far more practical. What, for instance, is >she supposed to do if in the course of working on something she removes the >Star Trek equivalent of a bolt and doesn't want it rolling away? Well, isn't that something of a problem with all the ST costumes? I confess I've given up watching over the past few years, but aren't they all only functional *looking*, but actually require another person's assistance for things like getting out of them to use the facilities? Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Um, Vonda, I don't think he meant that as a slight or anything. I know I loved the book. I think you did a fine job. Becca -----Original Message----- From: Vonda N. McIntyre To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars >So, um, I was supposed to expand the place of ALL >the token characters in all three movies? > >That's an awful lot to ask of one little book. > >It also isn't what I was asked to do. > >(And even then, I have to point out that Xaverri, >among others, is clearly not Caucasian; and I made >a number of non-human characters central -- Lusa >the centaur child has the last line! -- as opposed >to giving Luke and Han medals while Chewbacca gets >to stand by and look on worshipfully.) > >I'm sorry you found the work inadequate. > >Maybe it's just another example of the failure of >imagination I've been accused of recently. All I >can say is I did the best I could in the time I >had to do it in. (Which was half the time I >expected and agreed to.) > >Vonda > >On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:31:55 -0600, Sean Johnston > wrote: > > >>Hmm...I b'lieve you've got Yoda and Lando Calrissian (sp?) >> > > >http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda >The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's >"Best Books of 1997" >http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:57:16 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: <01bcefe0$a4a4ae60$72745181@raven.tcs.tulane.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Becca, Thanks for the kind words. I couldn't figure out any other way to interpret Sean's message than as a challenge that I ought to have done something other than what I did. If I misread it, naturally I'm sorry. My skin is a little thin about Crystal Star, especially on the Internet. While I have a case-sized box of letters telling me how much people like it, the reaction on the web is often that I'm the spawn of satan ("bitch" was one of the less loaded words applied to me) for focusing on Leia, Jacen, Jaina, and Anakin. Vonda On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:57 -0600, Becca Stoler wrote: >Um, Vonda, I don't think he meant that as a slight or anything. I know I >loved the book. I think you did a fine job. > >Becca > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:15:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Star Trek Women / Seven of Nine In a message dated 97-11-12 12:23:56 EST, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > >Barbara Benesch said: > >I agree that a long, flowing outfit would not work for most of the work > that > >goes on on a starship, but something a bit less tight, and including a few > >pockets would seem to me to be far more practical. What, for instance, is > >she supposed to do if in the course of working on something she removes the > >Star Trek equivalent of a bolt and doesn't want it rolling away? > > Well, isn't that something of a problem with all the ST costumes? I confess > I've given up watching over the past few years, but aren't they all only > functional *looking*, but actually require another person's assistance for > things like getting out of them to use the facilities? You're right. Picking on the pockets thing (I'm a big fan of pockets, and ouch, pardon my pun), the only pockets I've seen that I can think of off the top of my head is when Dr. Crusher was wearing that blue sweater with the two pockets in it. But she mostly just kept her hands in those. As far as requiring another person's assistance for removing them, isn't that what transporters are for? (No, I'm kidding, really.) Seriously, some of them aren't too bad, but the first season of STTNG, those one-piece outfits didn't look at all fun. Also, on DS9 Kira's "uniform" looks like two pieces, but it is apparently a one-piece outfit with a jacket over it. For the life of me I can't figure out how she gets in and out of that one. So, Maryelizabeth, you're right, it's not just Seven of Nine. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:31:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses In a message dated 97-11-12 12:24:06 EST, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > >Barbara Benesch > >BJBenesch@aol.com commented: > > >Anyway, my real reason for replying to this is that I too am bothered by > the > >idea of a Borg with breasts. My major complaint with the "Generations" > movie > >was the so-called Borg Queen (why was it the first obviously female Borg we > >saw was not only evil, but overtly sexual?). Not only was the face of one > of > >the original Borg largely untouched, but for some reason was also > interested > >in using sex to manipulate others!? > > > >(Why is it that in movies in the last few years, the "evil" women are > always > >trying to use sex to capture the bad guy, or are [within the world of the > >movie] sexual deviants? I know it's happened before, but has it really > >started up again in the last few years, or has it been going steady all > along > >and I've just been slow to notice? Wait, that's a rant for another time, so > I > >guess that's my cue to finish this up.) > > > > Barbara: > > can you cite some specifics? Guess I'm just as glad to have been missing > many movies since the arrival of my 3 year old. > > > 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 Well, the first two that come to mind are such feminist "gems" as _Goldeneye_ (the most recent James Bond movie) and _Die_Hard_3_. Hmm. I'm having a hard time thinking of any others. Maybe it just seemed that way to me because I saw both of those around the same time as I saw _First_Contact_. I'm going to think about it more, so maybe it did just seem that way. (Oh, wait, there *was* _Basic_Instinct_ [she was bisexual, after all, which Michael Douglas sure seemed to consider deviant].) I'm going to think about this some more and see if I can think of other examples, because I feel certain there are some more out there, and if there aren't, then I'm going to have think a few things through again. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:38:05 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@Best.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: [snip] > While I have a > case-sized box of letters telling me how much > people like it, the reaction on the web is often > that I'm the spawn of satan ("bitch" was one of > the less loaded words applied to me) for focusing > on Leia, Jacen, Jaina, and Anakin. > > Vonda Hi, I haven't read any of the SW books yet. Now I *know* I want to read this one, considering the focus. >:-D Thanks for being a. . . uh. . . woman who focussed on female characters. :-) Dangerous person to be, it seems. No word really encompasses such a creature. . .except possibly "author." "Writer" would work, too. ? I believe people are having a fit over it, (seein' as people have fits about odd things all the time) but I don't understand why. Lindy --- "I invented my life by taking for granted that everything I did not like would have an opposite, which I would like." --Coco Chanel > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:02:57 -0600, Becca Stoler > wrote: > > >Um, Vonda, I don't think he meant that as a slight or anything. I know I > >loved the book. I think you did a fine job. > > > >Becca > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:38:17 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@Best.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Clothing, hard hats, heels, pockets, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Related to our discussion about clothing in SF and elsewhere, I found a nice, literary-type quote by Lydia Marie Child. "Why should we all dress after the same fashion? The frost never paints my windows twice alike." Lindy (Although I think pockets should always be included). :) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:04:19 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ildney Cavalcanti Subject: Re: feminist dystopias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Charnas' two (is there a 3rd? I'll try and find it) works that Robin is >>thinking of are "Walk to the End of the Earth" and "Motherlines" that I >>read bound together into one volume. The volumes are "Walk to the End of the World", "Motherlines", and "The Furies" (all in print). Charnas is writing the fourth (final?) book of the Alldera series at the moment. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:28:48 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Anyone seen this? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:53:24 +0100 (CET) >From: "Alexander A. J. Heinemann" Q: How many Internet mail list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1,331 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers. 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb. 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it there. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:26:54 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sean Johnston wrote: > > > >Was also one of the reasons I was interested in > >taking on the challenge of my Star Wars novel -- > >to find some characters in the universe who > >weren't (by now) middleaged white guys. > > > >Vonda > > Hmm...I b'lieve you've got Yoda and Lando Calrissian (sp?) > You've also got a lot of dead, *old* white guys (Kenobi, Tarkin, Palpatine)... ;) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:32:58 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > (And even then, I have to point out that Xaverri, > among others, is clearly not Caucasian; and I made > a number of non-human characters central -- Lusa > the centaur child has the last line! -- as opposed > to giving Luke and Han medals while Chewbacca gets > to stand by and look on worshipfully.) By any chance did you catch MTV's movie awards this year? Chewbacca won the Lifetime Achievement Award, modeled after that medal he wasn't given in _ANH_. That always bothered me, even at four. I never understood why Chewie didn't get one. Maybe because the alliance gave all its gold to Han? :) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:50:03 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > My skin is a little thin about Crystal Star, > especially on the Internet. While I have a > case-sized box of letters telling me how much > people like it, the reaction on the web is often > that I'm the spawn of satan ("bitch" was one of > the less loaded words applied to me) for focusing > on Leia, Jacen, Jaina, and Anakin. > I'll step out of the woodwork completely: When I first read it, I was disappointed (not as disappointed as I was with Tyers's _Bakura_, but that's another story). However, as I began to examine what you were doing with the book, the more I liked it (and, no matter what anyone says, it is rather refreshing to get away from Luke and his Jedi melancholy and Han's wistful thinking of his good old smuggler days). I think people are upset that: 1) the cover isn't exactly true to the book - Luke is the main figure (if not the only figure...my copy is still at my mother's house) on the cover; 2) you somehow turned your back on the true characters in the series (which is wrong, too). Now, we could argue the merits of the series as a whole (which I seem to have stopped buying after the first three books of that silly _X-wing_ series), especially with such weak pieces as _The Truce at Bakura_ and _The Corellia Trilogy_ (which I *still* can't bring myself to finish reading - I'm languishing somewhere in the end of the second book), but for people to attack you for the fact that you changed focus in your book onto Leia and the children is insane. Perhaps these folks would like to discuss the entirely silly proposition of Zahn's "Luuke Skywalker" clone...(no, I *didn't* like Zahn's trilogy). - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:49:33 +-500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MUZZAMMIL MAROOF RATHORE Subject: Unsubscribe. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Unsubscibe. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:21:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Teragram Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Practicality and ornament needn't cancel one another out entirely. I agree with this completely. My feeling is that it's entirely possible to dress attractively and still be practicable - but it seems that much of women's fashion is not designed towards this end, which is one of the central points I was trying to make. When much of what is generally perceived as 'sexy' or 'attractive' for women's wear is constrictive of movement to some degree, I think there's something wrong with the picture. >And I know plenty of women who wear frills and >heels who can also hold their own *extremely* well in any business or >intellectual discussion. They present their intelligence through what >they say, not what they wear. Once again, I agree with this. My statement was:' Now, if you're dressing for an event or a life where you don't have to worry much about moving or safety or practicality, that's all peachy keen. ' I don't assume a person is less or more intelligent based on what they're wearing, unless what they're wearing is unsuitable for the work that they're doing. I probably wasn't as clear on this as I could have been. What I see in my life is a lot of women wearing clothes that they themselves find uncomfortable in order to fit a certain image, and I have some serious questions about the trade-off they've chosen to make. It was one thing when there were fewer dress options for the professional women - now it seems that there's a much wider gamut of accepted professional wear for women, and some of it's comfortable and practicable as well as being attractive. So, if a woman's wearing clothes that she finds uncomfortable and impracticable in order to fit an image, I question her choices. >And, on some deep nasty little level of >myself, I find it difficult to respect people who'd respect me if I were >wearing overalls and galoshes, but assume that I was a "bimbo" if I were >wearing a ball-gown and sequinned slippers. In my book, that's >suspiciously sexist . . . just my $.02! If you're wearing that gown and slippers for physical labor, you've lost my respect. If you're wearing it at a ball, I'll probably be jealous (especially if you've got a sparkle wand and glitter crown!). Either way, I'm not going to assume you're a 'bimbo' based on the clothes you're wearing - that's a behavioral issue. And to bring this all back to science fiction literature, clothing is often extremely relevent to the treatment of women in these stories - the dresses in the Handmaid's Tale announced the status of the wearer and kept their bodies well hidden; the wrist chains worn by the Drytown women in the Darkover novels were clear indicators of the way women were regarded in that society; the women of Whileaway seem to dress as they please with a keen eye to comfort and practicality; in Mattapoisett everyone pretty much wears what they want and it all sounds comfortable. The more equal the society presented, the less likely anyone is to be wearing daily clothes that aren't comfortable, practicible, and attractive. So, when I'm reading a story where the women are presented as being equal but are still stuck in a fashion prision, it leads me to wonder how throughly the author has investigated the concept of equality. Kinda like the original Star Trek, where the women were presented as being, well, almost equal (unless they wanted to be captains) but were stuck in miniskirts and 'helping' roles. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:49:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: books in print Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" With regard to SMC's books and others: since this is an international list, perhaps we should be specific about country when discussing the in print status of works. Kinda like I should have been clear I was talking about SF in US comics, earlier. 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:56:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: High heels and hard hats Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ultimately, isn't what's sexy what the individual feels sexy in?? 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:48:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Clay's Ark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I've found that a common theme in her work is that the protagonists do indeed get put through the ringer - something cataclysmic happens to them and they can't overcome it. This is one thing that sets Butler apart from many authors (in my experience) is that at the end of the book, they don't magically find a cure, or defeat the nasty aliens, etc. - instead they have to find a way to cope. I find it both intriguing and disturbing - I like happy endings. But in this way her books are very realistic - I often can't solve the problems in my life, I just have to find a way to live with them that keeps me sane and healthy - as her character try to do. sheryl > ---------- > From: DAVID CHRISTENSON[SMTP:LDQT79A@PRODIGY.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 6:10 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Clay's Ark > > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > Just finished reading Butler's Clay's Ark, the first Butler novel for > me > . I was quite surprised at how violent it was, and how badly she > treated > her protagonists. Am I being oversensitive? Is this characteristic of > Butler? > > Anyway, I found the alien disease and its effects quite interesting, > and > I kept trying to fit it into some kind of feminist frame, but it > wouldn't go. (Seemed like a sequel was possible - was there one?) > -- > David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com > > "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:52:14 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Fred Bosman Subject: Introduction My name is Fred (really). I live in Gronigen, the Netherlands. I joined this mail list a few weeks back and have been lurking since then. Now that I want to react to message, I think it is time to introduce myself. I have studied philosophy and followed some courses in feminist philosophy. Together with a few other students I formed a Feminist SF reading group. We started with the 'classical' novels: LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness, Russ' Female Man, Piercy's Woman at the Edge of Time, etc. Now I am a director of videoclips and try to get a job working for television. But I find Feminist SF still very interesting. The reason I like it is probably the same reason I studied Feminist Philosophy: there are a lot of interesting new ideas, and new ways of looking at things. My collection of Feminist SF I would have to describe as large. I have collected quite a few books, stories and articles about Feminist SF. My favourite authors are Joanna Russ, James Triptree, jr. and Octavia Butler. I look forward to some interesting discussions! Fred Bosman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:03:05 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Fred Bosman Subject: Re: Clay's Ark LUZ wrote > lguerra@ibm.net > > I don't know that there was a specific sequel to Clay's Ark (anyone?) > although I remember I thought I saw some parallel themes with > Patternmaster (it's been a while). > > luz > As far as I know Clay's Ark didn't have a 'proper' sequel, but Claysarkians are mentioned in Patternmaster; being creatures that cannot be control by the telepathists. The Patternist novels are not published in their chronological order. I think the other of novels sofar would be: Wildseed, Mind of my Mind, Clay's Ark (not a real Patternist novel), Survivor and Patternmaster. Fred Bosman ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:56:43 -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: Clay's Ark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > lg: David, I don't understand what you mean by treating her protagonists badly, > could you explain? Poorly stated by me. I meant, as Sean discerned, that her protagonists go through all kinds of grief, and the reader can't assume that their heroic efforts will not be in vain. > I think of Butler's work as important to feminist sf because her female > characters are so truely portrayed in full human complexity. Alot of her work, > such as Clay's Ark, presents a not-so-impossible-to-imagine near future where > our society as we know it collapses. IMHO, the female characters don't > necessarily have a feminist agenda: they are fighting to survive horrendous > conditions and remain fully human. Thanks, this helps. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:58:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Lucy Lawless Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- >BTW, I channel-surfed into a bit of Howard Stern's "interview" with Lucy >"Xena" Lawless a while ago, and in those brief moments when Stern wasn't >interrupting Lawless to blab about himself, I discerned that Lawless is >under a lot of pressure to star in a Wonder Woman (or Xena) movie, but >she won't do it because it would take up all her free months which she >devotes to family, and she's got what she calls an "F.U." attitude about >that kind of pressure. (Bravo.) That selfish woman! I would adore a WW pic with Lucy -- or a full length Xena movie, for that matter. What's the deal, Daisy (her daughter) and her husband to be rate over all us devoted fans?? (tongue firmly in cheek). 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:02:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Well, the first two that come to mind are such feminist "gems" as _Goldeneye_ >(the most recent James Bond movie) and _Die_Hard_3_. Hmm. I'm having a hard >time thinking of any others. Maybe it just seemed that way to me because I >saw both of those around the same time as I saw _First_Contact_. I'm going >to think about it more, so maybe it did just seem that way. (Oh, wait, there >*was* _Basic_Instinct_ [she was bisexual, after all, which Michael Douglas >sure seemed to consider deviant].) I'm going to think about this some more >and see if I can think of other examples, because I feel certain there are >some more out there, and if there aren't, then I'm going to have think a few >things through again. > >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com Barbara: To clarify, I wasn't questioning your perceptions -- just trying to figure out what to avoid on the video racks. :) I saw Basic Instincts way back when, but probably wouldn't have picked up the other two anyway. OTOH, a movie with sexy heros (in a noir way) was Bound, which I enjoyed. 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:01:55 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I saw Stormship Troopers last night and I was rooting for the bugs. They were way more interesting than the people. Although there were tons of people killed, it didn't bother me at all - and I get nightmares from violent movies. The people were just way too one-dimensional to believe. Thanks to all of you who posted your opinions about the movie so I was prepared for the worst of it (like Diz' last words). My main complaint other than not getting to see enough of the bugs, was the volume of the soundtrack. I think I'll have to start bringing ear plugs to movies. Ack! I'm starting to sound like my parents! Anyway my purpose in writing is to ask all of you what feminist sf story should be made into a movie, if Stormship Troopers is such a bad example. Be fair and pick something that actually might have a chance of making it through hollywood. I kept leaning toward anything vaguely space-opera-ish, but I suppose if Handmaid's Tale was made there's hope for earth-bound stories. Here are some ideas that went through my mind considering this: The Chanur stories - but then we all have such vivid ideas of what kif and hani look like I doubt hollywood would do it justice. Ammonite - great adventure story, but hard to imagine hollywood funding a movie without any men. One can hope, though. I also loved Slow River but my guess is adventure would have more chance of making the silver screen than sewage. China Mountain Zhang - this one perhaps has the most potential for actually being made. I'd love to see the kite races. McIntyre's Starfarers etc. - Although I love these stories perhaps there's not enough chase scenes (sorry, Vonda, but somehow I don't think you'll take that as an insult). How about perhaps Dreamsnake? Melissa Scott's Night Sky Mine would be terrific - I'd love to see the special-effects interpretation of her invisible world. Of course I'd also love to see the old Silence stories made into a movie, but that's way less likely. Other ideas? -- Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ---------------------------------------------------------- ++ Actioneering: the art and science of getting it done ++ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:17:50 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: OT - "rules for heroines" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:20:46 GMT From: Jean Lamb To: mathews@unm.edu Subject: Re: OT: But wait! There's more! (from Chuck Lipsig) Additional Rules for Heroines: 10. I will not swoon in the heros arms, nor pull on him to get him away when he is trying to aim. 11. If the hero pulls me away from the fray just as I have lined up my shot, I will thank him, then beat him within an inch of his life, at a reasonable time. 12. I will not turn down the hero's romantic overtures on the sole basis of having though him dead and having finally managed to deal with life without him. 13. I will wear clothing and shoes that are practical for running, fighting, and carrying heavy objects in. If seduction is necessary and not achievable in practical clothes, it can be achieved by selective removal or ripping of outfit. 14. I will find out who the villain's clothing designer is and employ him or her to design my wedding night lingerie. 15. I will spend some time in cardio-vascular training. When we flee the villain, I'm not going to be the one who begs to stop and rest for a bit. 16. I will not stomp out on the hero, telling him how insensitive to me he is. He may have other things on his mind at the moment and, hopefully, there will be a quiet time after all the fuss and turmoil to tell him what an unthinking cretin he has been without endangering the kingdom/planet/universe. 17. If he's too uncertain, shy, or nervous to propose, I will. Women are allowed to take the initiative in this literary day and age. 18. Special for heroines who are involved with other people than the hero, are Lesbians, or both. I will not get upset if the hero makes a pass at me. He can't know if he hasn't asked. However, once I've made my statust clear to him, I reserve the right, after other problems have been solved, to flay him within an inch of his life if he persists in his attempts. Chuck Lipsig lipsig@atlantic.net Gainesville, FL Jean Lamb, from Klamath Falls, Oregon, tlambs@magick.net http://www.sff.net/people/jeanlamb. Just hired to work part-time at a library near me! (whip me, beat me, MAKE me get paid for working with books!). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:12:31 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: OT - "rules for heroines" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Pat: Lovely -- reminds me of the list of things not to do if one becomes an Evil Ruler. But what happened to 1 thru 9?? 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:16:05 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Enoch's Vision Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:02 13-11-97 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >OTOH, a movie with sexy heros (in a noir way) was Bound, which I enjoyed. > > By coincidence, I rented that yesterday and watched it after reading a nice blurb on it by Gene Siskel. Much better than I thought it would be and with a near perfect end. A little bloody for my tastes though. Also, isn't there a law somewhere that says you can't make a gangster film unless you cast Joe Pesci in it? Just wondering. Good film with great suspense and directing. Not my usual fare but I did enjoy it. The clothes lines with laundered money on them were beautiful. The director missed a great opportunity to do something really artistic with that. Cary ~~~~~~~~ http://www.mindspring.com/~faraday/ (my Art Gallery--18,833 hits Oct'97) http://www.monalatte.com/ (my sci-fantasy novel novel in progress) http://web-3.com/cdug/board/reinstein/ (CorelDRAW User's Group) My new sites--coming soon to a screen near you: www.enochsvision.com and www.visionarypark.com (ICQ: 3681184) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:19:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: NESchaadt Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" With respect to Joan Crawford, I believe one of the most important modern (post B&W) portrayal of womyn as villain was Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.' NS not-so-short intro: I've been lurking since last spring when I found this listserv through the Feminist SF WWW page. I spent the summer consuming every volume on the introductory reading list and was thrilled to find discussions about my favorite subject--although some of the dialogue is a bit over my head. My favorites include Sheri Tepper (If she published her shopping list, I'll buy it) Le Guin, McNee Charnas, MZB (occasionally), Hand and Moon. I'm a free-lance journalist (I write about wimmin's issues, mountain biking, extreme sports and food/spirits) and a hopeless non-academic who feels charmed to have escaped college with a BA. I live in north TX, was born in NJ, am comfortable in Seattle and have lived in eastern PA, Washington DC and San Francisco. I'm 35 and married to a wonderful fella. No kids unless you count two cats, two vintage muscle cars and a husband as children (I do). I'm also a volunteer patient advocate for a local clinic. Blessed Be and Best Fishes, NS Nancy Schaadt ---->Insert grammar and spelling flames here<---- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:25:34 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: evil sexy villainesses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm going to play the Devil's advocate, now... On the Borg Queen: could it be that she uses sex because she knows that that is the human male's weakness (which would have been built into the emotion chip Data has)? Since assimilation is the primary objective of the Borg, wouldn't they have a sexualized borg, queen or drone, that would be used to seduce those who resist? Granted, I wouldn't credit the producers or writers with that one. They wanted a sexually attractive bad guy, but if we extrapolate the fact that the Borg would have different sub-programs to assimilate differing personalities...if we don't see the queen as truly in charge (and there have been rumors that there is more than one "queen" - after all, the homeworld is still out there somewhere), but as an instrument to her the Borg programming, then she's nothing more than a puppet. I suspect the Borg "overmind" would take on masculine attributes in a filmic setting, and the societal mirror that the Borg are to us would truly begin to show (again, I suspect the writers and producers would merely put that together because "it would just so darned cool!" (he said, sarcastically)) BTW, let's face it: the Earth would be doomed if it had been Capt. Kirk as opposed to Capt. Picard. - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:28:43 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: [WIG] Fw: [*FSFFU*] OT - "rules for heroines" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry about the repeat message folks, I was trying to forward it to my Womyn in Gaming list, but I failed. Sorry. Becca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:37:52 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Ammonite - great adventure story, but hard to imagine hollywood > funding > a movie without any men. One can hope, though. I also loved Slow > River > but my guess is adventure would have more chance of making the silver > screen than sewage. I dunno. _Slow River_ might have a better chance than _Ammonite_. I don't think the studios would be ready to portray women in an adventure *and* being intimate with one another *and* having, what?, two males throughout the piece. A smaller studio might do it, but then the distributors would want to know who'd they market it to... I can see your other suggestions coming through, albeit in drastically changed forms... What about _Trouble on Triton_ (or _Triton_ , for those who haven't seen the latest edition)? Delany seems to be getting hot again, and that's definitely a novel that someone like Cronenberg, or the French fellow doing the new _Alien_ film, or the director of _Kissed_ (I can't think of her name...I think it's a woman) could handle. I can't see Le Guin being picked up any time soon, and I think Piercy is too complex for the vast majority of screenwriters nowadays... Maybe they could try a remake of _The Handmaid's Tale_ and get it right this time... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 13:32:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: OT - "rules for heroines" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > Pat: > > Lovely -- reminds me of the list of things not to do if one becomes an Evil > Ruler. > > But what happened to 1 thru 9?? I think they came in an earlier post. my email is being very troublesome.> > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:43:22 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Leia's outfit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sorry to be a few days late in responding to the posts on the bondage Leia doll: I followed them with immense interest, but have had TOO MANY papers to read/comment on this week. I was a very reluctant SW fan; in fact, I was so irritated at my Trek friends who (I thought at the time) became immediately brainwashed by Jedi Knights that they deserted Trek (two friends saw it sixty some times in the first year or two) that I refused to see SW until 1983. Then I was in England and so homesick that I went to see it. I saw the second and third ones soon after, and remember being so irritated at the slave scene that I ranted to friends: the thing that irritated me was what I believed to be obvious pandering (in all senses of the word) to the fathers who were dragged by kids to the movies. Yes, Leia is a slave then--and does escape--she has no choice. But she is a slave to a completely non-humanoid alien: I don't know what kind of sex life Jabba the Hut and his species have, but I doubt he'd (???) be turned on by a woman in a costume that melds the brass bikini and harem girl look. If he knew enough about humans to want to humiliate his slave, he'd probably have her naked (casual nudity didn't seem to be big in the Empire!). But of course that wouldn't fly. If his species didn't wear clothes, and he didn't know about humans, why bother with anything? If they'd wanted to flash some skin, they could have had her in her original outfit (whatever she was wearing when captured??_ but have it be a bit tattered by the time she'd spent as a captive. There was no kind of dramatic rationale for that costume within the movie--and I hated it because I figured it was just for the men in the audience that someone (who knows who) thought would appreciate it. Reminded me of those famous covers from the earlier pulp magazines! I also read an interview with Carrie Fisher where she talked about how the darn thing would hike around to a more or less X-rated position whenever she moves. *sigh* Robin. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:04:52 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: The meanings of clothes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been enjoying the fascinating discussion on clothing (7's tight clothes, loose flowing clothes favored by some SCA members, etc), and am reminded of a nifty essay by Deborah Tannen (a linguist) where she relates attending an academic meeting with several other women and several men. I am going from memory here; the piece resonated strongly with me, but if I saved it, it's buried under piles and piles of paper. My summary may not be the most accurate in terms of details, but I think I am conveying the overall point fairly. She describes what the women are wearing: it's important to remember these women are all academics. So, one was wearing a suit and skirt, another a fairly tight, lowcut dresss, a third a very long flowing loose outfit (three contrasting outfits, all with "matching" shoes and makeup choices). And Tannen looked at the women, and then the men who were all wearing generic academic male attire (slacks, shirts, jackets, a tie or two), and thought that no matter WHAT women do they are "marked." The term "marked" is use specifically in linguistics as the opposite of "unmarked." An unmarked usage in linguistic terminology is what is normal and passes unnoted. A marked term is abnormal, is foregrounded or catches people's attention. For example, in English MOST clauses are structured Subject/Verb/Object. Not every "sentence," but enough so that variations have to be handled in a certain way. Other languages do not structure their clauses this way, but that's another post. Applying the linguistic terminology to dress means that men have "unmarked" clothing to wear: certainly there are clothes which are not appropriate for a male professor to wear, but there's a 'uniform' which more or less signifies 'professor.' I noticed when I was in graduate school in the late seventies, most of my male friends acquired some facial hair, jackets with leather elbows, and a few even took up pipes by their second year in the program. (I think most of them outgrew it a few years later, heh heh.) However, there's no 'unmarked' uniform for a woman in academia (and perhaps by extention other areas of society): that is, a woman who chooses to dress in clothing which is perceived by others (and perhaps herself) to emphasize her sexuality is "marked" in one way; a woman who chooses to dress in clothing which is perceived by others (and perhaps herself) to downplay her sexuality is "marked" in another way. And the marking always seems to be on the virgin/whore spectrum. There is no neutral space: "professor" -- a woman is always a "female professor" (or lady professor). And that's a white woman--no doubt an African American woman who is a professor is always identified as "African American woman professor." And that marking stands out as "different than the neutral norm," and as "minority." I see women making different choices every day on this campus. Recently, friends and I were discusisng one woman who had drastically changed her attire because (we had heard) of her worries that she would not be granted tenure (she's the only woman in her small and we think dysfunctional department) This all is a loaded issue, so I'm certainly not going to name any names. But basically she's begun dressing in much tighter, shorter, lower cut etc. clothing--and voting/pushing her department's party line in committees, etc. Yet if she doesn't get tenure--well. If what Tannen is saying is true, and I think it is, it doesn't make much sense saying that any one item of clothing proves a woman is liberated (or using or not using makeup)--the meaning is constructed which implies any clothing has the potential to become marked as demaaning/asking for it/etc. in a patriarchal culture where women are assigned the "marked" position. Robin tighter clothes, shorter skirts, low cut tops, etc. She's also begun voting/speaking the party line in committees, etc. All the untenured women I know have spent time debating what and how to wear. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:10:02 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Leia's outfit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > But she is a slave to a > completely non-humanoid alien: I don't know what kind of sex life > Jabba the > Hut and his species have, but I doubt he'd (???) be turned on by a > woman in > a costume that melds the brass bikini and harem girl look. Actually, that's not quite right - the original screenplay (which saw Oola, the dancer, escape Jabba's palace) explained it, and a short story later picked up on the old draft: Jabba, as disgusting as he may seem, actually appreciates the female form in the various races he has come across. That explains the varied women in the court, including Sy Snootles (the singer) and the other dancer (plus the additional women in the special edition). The other explaination is that there's no way Lucasfilm would have shown Fisher nude onscreen. Lucas himself is too tame for that. - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:11:56 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: The meanings of clothes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And Dr. Tannen is a Wayne State grad... :) Sorry, all...just have to cheer for the home team, you know. - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:24:46 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@Best.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: Species traitor (SciFi Books to Hollywood Movies) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel wrote: [snip] > Anyway my purpose in writing is to ask all of you what feminist sf story > should be made into a movie, if Stormship Troopers is such a bad > example. Be fair and pick something that actually might have a chance > of making it through hollywood. [snip] Three immediately came to mind: _Welcome, Chaos_ by Kate Wilhelm. It has aspects of mystery, intrigue, romance/sex, choices, a change in world order and an interesting woman in the center of it all who is not in her early adulthood. _The Word for World is Forest_ by Ursula K. LeGuin. I think that there is adequate technology to make the characters live on film. Would appeal to SciFi interest as well as ecological interests. It would be nice to see a movie where the aliens weren't the bad guys. There's enough killing to satisfy the gore seekers, but not so much that someone like me would feel compelled to leave the theatre because I couldn't keep my eyes and ears covered that long. _Woman on the Edge of Time_. Not mainstream, maybe. . .how about as a "chick-flick?" I'd love to see a decent version of this in film. > How about perhaps Dreamsnake? Oh yeah!! It's a great story and completely do-able. I sure would like to see a human with a disability in a movie without it being *all* about that disability. Just a character who is part of the story. Besides, I just love a woman with serpants. >:D Lindy -- "Just the knowledge that a good book is awaiting one at the end of a long day makes that day happier." --Kathleen Norris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:43:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: SciFi Books that should be movies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I personally have been dying for _Parable of the Sower_ to be made into a movie.... Or an expansion of Butler's short story "Speech Sounds". Just a thought (Octavia Butler on the mind) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I told you to never trust a monkey!" --Brak's Mom Kate Bolin http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin Dymphna http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin/dymphna Delenn Deserves Better http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/9060 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:35:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: evil sexy villainesses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Okay, before we stray so far OT that we get shut down, let me recommend _Vamps: An Illustrated History of the Femme Fatale_ by Pam Keesey, coming this month or next from Cleis Press. While the focus is mostly on the vamp on screen, there is a lot of neat text to accompany the really wonderful pictures. I know it's on my holiday gift list! 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:42:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Sheri Tepper's shopping list... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Nancy commented: >. My favorites include Sheri Tepper (If she published her >shopping list, I'll buy it) Yeah, me too. I am still trying to track down her earliest stuff -- her poetry, and then some of the pamphlets she wrote while in charge of Planned Parenthood in CO. :) Maybe someday, time and finances allowing, we true devotees can all meet at her B&B ranch in NM and enjoy quality time together. 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: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:50:35 +0000 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri & Bruce Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: Sheri Tepper's shopping list... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > Nancy commented: > > >. My favorites include Sheri Tepper (If she published her > >shopping list, I'll buy it) > > Yeah, me too. I am still trying to track down her earliest stuff -- her > poetry, and then some of the pamphlets she wrote while in charge of Planned > Parenthood in CO. :) Sherri Tepper is really one of my favorites too. I found her two Awakeners ( Northshore & Southshore) in a Hospice run bookstore the other day. What a treat to read those two again. I just purchased Fowler^Òs Sarah Canary recomended by someone on this list. It looks really interesting. Terri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:12:15 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Eleanor Arnason Subject: Re: I GIVE UP I realize this proves I am a wimp, but there is no way on earth I can keep up with this list. Laura, please take me off. I know you warned me. I didn't believe you, I guess. I wish there was a way to have a small, quiet discussion group devoted to literary SF. (I mean no disrespect to media SF, but I don't watch TV and don't go to many movies. A hopelessly print-bound person.) All best, Eleanor Arnason ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:23:53 -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: evil sexy villainesses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > On the Borg Queen: could it be that she uses sex because she knows that that is > the human male's weakness (which would have been built into the emotion chip > Data has)? Since assimilation is the primary objective of the Borg, wouldn't > they have a sexualized borg, queen or drone, that would be used to seduce those > who resist? I agree it was a decision based on "that would be cool." Why would the Borg need a queen for any other purpose? Not for the breeding/genetic reasons that bees need queens. Bee colonies are heirarchical and isolationist; Borg are collectively organized and, for lack of a better term, interstitial. And it didn't make sense for them to centralize control of their consciousness in one being - it made them more vulnerable. (Does the Internet need Bill Gates?) Seems to me the queen was a means of introducing a character who could "seduce" Data, which was the thrust of the plot. And of course that character had to be female, so that the creators could fall back on a titillating stereotype. There's no reason why a male or a neuter Borg couldn't have done the same things to Data as the queen did. But the unenlightened 12-year-old boys in the audience wouldn't go for that... Funny how Data never explored his options re sexual preference early on. .. Speaking as a former beekeeper... -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:23:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Pam Keesey (was: evil sexy villainesses) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > Okay, before we stray so far OT that we get shut down, let me recommend _Vamps: > An Illustrated History of the Femme Fatale_ by Pam Keesey, coming this month or > next from Cleis Press. I believe it was due out in October, so it should be available by now, though I haven't seen it yet (?) In any case, Keesey is editor of "Women Who Run With the Werewolves" and a book of lesbian vampire stories (I can't recall the title and I loaned my copies of these books and never got them back, of course). She has a well-thought-out theory of the vamp figure in popular culture, with plenty of supporting evidence from her research, so "Vamps" should be much more substantial than your average movie-still book. (I've heard her talk on this subject twice, at the Minneapolis cons Diversicon and Arcana.) She's a terrific person, and I'm looking forward to this book. Any more Keesey komments out there? -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:34:29 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: SF or not SF; Atwood; Inclusiveness/Heinlein Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 1. Regarding the categorization of writers, etc. in Vonda McIntyre's rant about publishing and SFWA membership (controversy about Crichton and LeGuin): I am currently the Area Chair for Science Fiction/Fantasy for the national Popular Culture Association (if you write about SF/F in any media, and don't know about this conference, let me know and I'll send you some information). Anyway, a few years back, the year before I became chair, I remember the "Ray Bradbury" group pulling out to establish their separate Area because "Ray Bradbury was too good a writer to be considered SF/F." To my sneaky joy, they haven't had many panels at all--joy NOT because I don't like Bradbury (I do, and LOVE some of his work), but because they were just so darn snooty about "their" writer being too good to be considered with the rest of us down in the gutter writing about SF/F writers. I have been occupying this marginally bizarre place in the last few years: I was active in Trek fandom for years (remember hearing Vonda read a chapter from _Barbary_ at one of the cons a few years back--**wonderful book**) but my fan friends didn't like it when I started writing papers about SF for my graduate seminars. The terms "nitpicky" and "hypercritical" were tossed about (I found the nitpicky accusation from FEN to be hilarious!!!!!) And academia isn't so sure about that popular culture stuff....my position in the department here is technically "Creative Writing and Critical Theory," and I basically get to work with all the "weird stuff" that our graduate students and honors students come up with that my senior colleagues are a bit, ahem, unfamiliar with (this includes, recently Alice Walker on the one hand and feminist theory/vampires on the other hand--what fun). So I get to be shunned by some fen for being academic and snooted by some academics for being into popular culture....thank goodness for PCA and listservs like this one! 2. Nalo replied to a comment I made about Atwood/Handmaid's Tale by noting: "NH: Hang on--didn't Suzette herself tell us many posts back that Atwood has been known to haul out a copy of _Native Tongue_ and acknowledge her debt to it?" Then I owe Atwood a profound apology: I should have said, more accurately, that I was not aware of any acknowledgement; I had read interviews at the time the movie came out (a very limited time) without seeing any acknowledgement of Elgin's novel. I love Atwood's work overall (THT is not a very successful SF novel in my mind, though a nice shocker of a tale), especially _Cat's Eye_, and was frustrated at the time (late eighties? I was in Seattle, but am not sure of the year, it was in the middle of my Ph.D. program, so my brain was fried) because of reading an inteview with Elgin about her problems getting the third novel published. With the movie (which I never saw--did anyone? The promos for it sure seemed to present an eroticized view of Offred's sexual slavery) and wide media acknowledgement of Atwood's novel plus interviews that seemed to quote her as denying it was SF, I was just grumpy about the whole thing. I'm glad to hear this--thanks! 3. Cannot resist noting that in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, Manny ends up arrested in the South while he and Prof are on Earth pushing for diplomatic recognition of Luna's claim to independence. He mentions that it's the range of colors in the extended family (multiple husbands and wives) that was part of getting arrested--mentions old laws on the books. Heinlein and Clarke (two of the Big Three SF writers) both often wrote novels which described future cultures in which racism was not known. In Clarke's novel, (1976) _Imperial Earth_ the protagonist Duncan Makenzie is a very "black" man--although since he lives on the colony Titan, he does not identify himself to himself or to readers as "African American." There's a scene at the quincentennial celebration of the US where some interesting comments are made about "race" in this future world. Argh--this listserv is terribly seductive! Back to reading papers! (Oh, I teach creative writing, and can say I'm not at all surprised to hear about the magnitude of Bad Stuff in the slush pile. All I can say is that if you're only seeing stories/novels you're lucky--the BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD poetry is even worse, IMHO!) Blessed Be! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:47:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Octavia Butler "earthseed" website MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In case anyone is curious, there is a website devoted to "Earthseed", the religion mentioned in Octavia Butler's novel _Parable of the Sower_. http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin/earthseed/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I told you to never trust a monkey!" --Brak's Mom Kate Bolin http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin Dymphna http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~kbolin/dymphna Delenn Deserves Better http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/9060 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:57:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Re: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) In a message dated 97-11-13 14:13:39 EST, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Anyway my purpose in writing is to ask all of you what feminist sf story > should be made into a movie, if Stormship Troopers is such a bad > example. Be fair and pick something that actually might have a chance > of making it through hollywood. What a wonderful idea!! Hmm. Most of the time when I imagine stories I know to turn into movies, I use comics as a basis. Hence, my first nominee: Birds of Prey: Black Canary and Oracle. See, I've been dreaming of a Black Canary movie ever since I discovered her six years ago. (I apologize to those of you for whom this means nothing.) But she's always *acted* very feminist, even when she was running around in fishnet stockings and high heels. And now that her costume has changed she's even more feminist *and* in her current superheroing, her partner is Oracle, also known as Barbara Gordon (funny thing, I really like that character too ;) ), formerly Batgirl, until The Joker shot her in the spine and so now she's paralyzed from the waist down, but keeps up with the superheroing gig by being an *extremely* covert behind-the-scenes operator, doing a lot of the detective work via computer because Black Canary's a little too hot-headed to slow down and think all the details through sometimes, and because Oracle is the daughter of Commissioner Gordon and former kid-partner of Batman, one of the greatest detectives to ever live (according to the DC Universe, that is). Also, Oracle's been proving lately that she's more than just a person typing on a computer, as in the most recent issue of Birds of Prey, she ended up proving herself *more* than capable of taking care of herself when some hood decided to try to mess with her. (Yay Oracle!!!) So while it's not a perfect feminist model, it is a movie that would stand a good shot of making it in Hollywood. (And I would just love it, everything else aside.) Okay, on to actual SF ideas. _Rimrunners_ by C.J. Cherryh could be good. This is more fantasy than SF, but _The_Hero_and_The_Crown_ and (less so) _The_Blue_Sword_ by Robin McKinley would be really good, and actually, while connected, they both would stand just fine on their own. I'm not sure how well _The_Gate_To_Women's_Country_ by Sheri S. Tepper would translate to film, but I think it would do fairly well, although I'm sure Hollywood would butcher it, or make the women out to be evil, rather than self-preserving. Again, more fantasy than sci-fi, but _The_Oathbound_ series by Mercedes Lackey is pretty good, and would translate *well* to Hollywood, I think. Well, that's it for now, but I'm going to think on this some more because this is really one of my favorite things to do: picking a story and deciding what the movie would be like (and casting it!). Again, thanks for such a great idea. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:53:59 -0500 Reply-To: "Jason A. Wallwork" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Jason A. Wallwork" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda, >My skin is a little thin about Crystal Star, >especially on the Internet. While I have a >case-sized box of letters telling me how much >people like it, the reaction on the web is often >that I'm the spawn of satan ("bitch" was one of >the less loaded words applied to me) for focusing >on Leia, Jacen, Jaina, and Anakin. I was trying to remember if I HAD read the Crystal Star, and the last comment makes me believe I have. I know it seems silly to be trying to remember, but I've read so many of the Star Wars novels, I honestly forget which ones were by who, when they take place and so on. I know I read one that focused a lot on the children and Leia, and as far as I'm concerned, that's great. My wife and I have read many of the SW books through our gracious public library, by virtue of me reading them aloud (and trying to do the voices and such, too :-) and both my wife and I love it when the Organa-Solo children are made pivotal to the action. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason A. Wallwork, E-mail: jsheridan@bigfoot.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:03:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) Comments: To: Jennifer Krauel In-Reply-To: <346B4092.7B1B3549@actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Jennifer Krauel wrote: (snip) > Anyway my purpose in writing is to ask all of you what feminist sf story > should be made into a movie, if Stormship Troopers is such a bad > example. Be fair and pick something that actually might have a chance > of making it through hollywood. One book that I think would make a wonderful animated film is *Dragonsinger* by Anne McCaffrey. I found this book when I was in my teens and it is still one of my favorites. This is such wonderful story and I imagine that the animators could do something really special with the fire lizards. After seeing the special effects in *Dragon Heart*, I'm sure that just about any of Anne McCaffrey's Dragon books could be turned into an exciting movie. The problem would be in whether or not Hollywood would be willing to leave the story lines intact. > Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing > jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 > http://www.actioneer.com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ++ Actioneering: the art and science of getting it done ++ > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:07:05 -0600 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: SF or not SF; Atwood; Inclusiveness/Heinlein In-Reply-To: <199711140234.CAA22676@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Robin Reid wrote: > Anyway, a few years back, the year before I became chair, I > remember the "Ray Bradbury" group pulling out to establish their separate > Area because "Ray Bradbury was too good a writer to be considered SF/F." To > my sneaky joy, they haven't had many panels at all--joy NOT because I don't > like Bradbury (I do, and LOVE some of his work), but because they were just > so darn snooty about "their" writer being too good to be considered with the > rest of us down in the gutter writing about SF/F writers. It seems to me that anyone who thinks that Ray Bradbury isn't a science fiction or fantasy writer (not counting his mysteries and Irish stories) shouldn't be allowed to give papers or write about him because they obviously don't KNOW anything about him. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:23:25 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: <346AE568.C69605F3@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I didn't see that, but it sure is about time. Vonda On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:32:58 -0400, "Geoffrey D. Sperl" wrote: > >By any chance did you catch MTV's movie awards this year? Chewbacca won >the Lifetime Achievement Award, ... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:24:08 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jennifer, Every so often somebody nibbles a bit on Dreamsnake as a movie; I even went so far as to write a screenplay (before I quite knew what I was doing, but I know how to revise it now). It could be made fairly economically. So if you happen to know anybody with about twelve million dollars they'd like to take a flyer with, by all means pass on my name. STARFARERS actually started as "the best tv miniseries never made." I designed it so it could mostly be filmed in somebody's back yard. It never was, of course, and the chance that American tv would ever make a series in which three of the four main characters are married to each other is somewhere in the imaginary numbers. However it did have a fan club... before it was ever written. Vonda >From: Jennifer Krauel >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:01:55 -0800 > >... >McIntyre's Starfarers etc. - Although I love these stories perhaps >there's not enough chase scenes (sorry, Vonda, but somehow I don't think >you'll take that as an insult). How about perhaps Dreamsnake? > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 07:23:47 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars In-Reply-To: <346AE968.F82A03BD@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Geoffrey, Probably you know that writers, generally, have less than no say over what's on their book covers. (Sometimes this works to our benefit, as with the MOON & SUN cover, which _I_ surely never would have come up with, but is the prettiest cover I've ever seen, much less had on one of my own books.) If it's any comfort, I had essentially the same reaction you did, to the Crystal Star cover. (Heck, I didn't even particularly like the _title_.) I mean, it's a pretty cover. But it doesn't have anything to do with the book. They never would have got away with showing Leia as Lelila with her multicolored hair. Chewbacca with a dye job, or See-Threepio in purple. (I actually got a truly furious letter from someone informing me in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that Threepio would NEVER disguise himself in PURPLE... please don't ask me what's wrong with purple, I have not got a clue and the letter writer did not give even a hint.) Han holding hands with Xaverri. (Even though I actually had permission to that that rekindled friendship "far enough to make Leia jealous," though it turned out not to happen quite that way.) Not to mention the kids riding Mistress Dragon. But any of those are what I would have liked to see. The proportion of people who hate my book is pretty small, as far as I can tell. It's just that a disproportionate number of them happen to hang out on the Internet. Best, Vonda On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:50:03 -0400, "Geoffrey D. Sperl" wrote: > >I'll step out of the woodwork completely: When I first read it, I was >disappointed (not as disappointed as I was with Tyers's _Bakura_, but >that's another story). However, as I began to examine what you were >doing with the book, the more I liked it... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:40:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jorjet Harper Subject: Re: Pam Keesey (was: evil sexy villainesses) << In any case, [Pam] Keesey is editor of "Women Who Run With the Werewolves" and a book of lesbian vampire stories (I can't recall the title and I loaned my copies of these books and never got them back, of course). >> The book you are thinking of is "Daughters of Darkness." Best wishes, Jorjet Harper Jetharper@aol.com Lesbonaut@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:19:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Geoffrey D. Sperl" wrote: > >By any chance did you catch MTV's movie awards this year? Chewbacca won >the Lifetime Achievement Award, ... And the year before it was Godzilla, with the award presented by Patrick Stewart at his "Shakespearean actor" best.... BTW, even thought this has nothing to do with feminism , unless Godzilla is female, I saw the new preview for the Godzilla feature before "Starship Troopers." Looks like it may be pretty good. When they were on location in the NYC area earlier this year we got hit by some severe thunderstorms (I'm in Manhattan). They filmed a real waterspout in New York harbor and said it was so cool that they had to put it in the final movie. So watch for that! However, maybe Godzilla is female. After all, the "illa" ending generally denotes a feminine name. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:56:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: Sheri Tepper's shopping list... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > Maybe someday, time and finances allowing, we true devotees can all meet at > her B&B ranch in NM and enjoy quality time together. oh please, can I come too? at a party a short while ago someone was doing that silly "which 4 famous people would you invite to have dinner with you if you could invite anyone dead or alive?" game, and Tepper's was the first name out of my mouth. The second was Yoda. edrie ***************************** Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:43:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Pam Keesey and _Vamps_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" David commented: >I believe it was due out in October, so it should be available by now, >though I haven't seen it yet (?) There may have been an earlier release date (and October would have made lots of sense) but according to the pr materials that came with my preview copy, it's a Jan 1998 release, in stores Dec. 15. >In any case, Keesey is editor of "Women Who Run With the Werewolves" and >a book of lesbian vampire stories Two, actually. _Daughters of Darkness_, (already mentioned by someone other than me) and _Dark Angels_. > She has a >well-thought-out theory of the vamp figure in popular culture, with >plenty of supporting evidence from her research, so "Vamps" should be >much more substantial than your average movie-still book. (I've heard >her talk on this subject twice, at the Minneapolis cons Diversicon and >Arcana.) She's a terrific person, and I'm looking forward to this book. Brief preview via chapter titles: Intro: Good Girls and Bad 1: "Good Evening, I am ... Vampira." 2: The Goddess in Every Vampire 3: "All Wickedness is but Little to the Wickedness of a Woman." 4: The Rise of the Modern Vampire 5: The Romantic Agony: 19th Century Images of the Fatal Woman 6: Theda Bara: Face of a Vampire, Heart of a Feminist 7: Sirens of the Silver Screen 8: "Cinderella in a Nightmare": The Allure of the Female Vampire 9: "She Gives You that Wierd Feeling": The Golden Age of Lesbian Vampires 10: That's No Lady, That's Sharon Stone 11: Vamps and Vampires: The Nineties and Beyond 12: In Praise of Wicked Women All typos mine... 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: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:48:41 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Tepper's pseudonyms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just in case ya'll don't know: Sherri Tepper publishes mysteries under the "names" of B.J. Olpiphant and A.J. Orde (last names are correct, the first initials might be reversed)--the Oliphant series has a female protagonist (in her fifties/sixties), and the Orde a male protagonist. They do have Tepper's name on the covers, but if you're not wandering around looking at mystery covers you might miss them. I'm a major completist myself, but haven't heard of her poetry! Gasp! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:54:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Gibbon's Decline and Fall In-Reply-To: <01bcec75$680de0c0$72745181@raven.tcs.tulane.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Becca Stoler wrote: > of Synagogue from Orthodox to Reform, and for a while, even considered > becoming a Rabbi. what changed all that? When my grandfather died, our > Rabbi learned that he had worked three jobs at a time to keep food on the > table, and the Rabbi turned hi nose up at us and refused to lead the > services of mourning after the funeral. I stepped in. I knew the services, Who was this pitiful excuse for a rabbi? Pity there's nobody except his Boss to callh im to account!> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:02:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keri Stone Subject: looking for recommendations for course Hi, One of my collegues has asked me for some recommendations for his class next semester. I teach in a private high school (the students are fairly sophisticated readers). He is interested in novels, short stories and essays by women I know that they currently read Gibson and Stephenson and some other cyberpunk novels, and he is disturbed because he does not have any female authors. Although I read a ton of sci-fi, I mostly stay away from cyberpunk so I wasn't sure what to recommend. I guess it doesn't have to be cyberpunk, but it should cretainly focus on technology of the future. I already suggested Melissa Scott and Raphael Carter's Fortunate Fall. I wasn't positive which Melissa Scott would be a good recommedation. Below is a description of his class in case you can think of any good fits. Any suggestions about any authors, particularly feminist ones, would be appreciated. Thanks Keri PS: I'm sorry if there have been recent posts on this subject already and would appreciate anyone sending me a summary privately. Media and Millennium is a new course that explores a variety of futurist scenarios created by leading storytellers of our time. Readings will include a series of science fiction novels, short stories and essays by prominent writers, scientists and philosophers that explore the impact of technology on our lives beyond the year 2000. The class will also screen a variety of films set in the future and explore the themes they raise. The course will emphasize the role technology plays in shaping these future realities and how it might change or challenge present day boundaries between man and machine. Students will use digital technologies to create a variety of multi-media essays including an internal web site run off the school's CABBS server to document their exploration of the third millennium. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:59:24 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Heroine's Rules 1-9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:39:08 GMT From: Jean Lamb To: mathews@unm.edu Subject: Re: How-To for Heroes (and Heroines) Rules for Heroines: 1) When being forced into a compromising position, and having been able to steal the dagger/blaster from the villain, I will _not_ toss it to the hero, who's just come into the room and may be asking himself if he's suddenly lost his charm; instead, I will use aforementioned weapon to remove whatever internal organs of the villain I happen to fancy for my personal collection. 2) When faced with the hero and a Bimbo sent by the villain to seduce him in yet another compromising position (or possibly the Villain Herself, you never know these days), I will not act abruptly, but merely congratulate him on his good taste and actually listen to his protestations of innocence (though I will make him take a shower and have him allow me to strip search him later--you never know what might have gotten planted on the boy). Later, if necessary, will direct him to the applicable statutes in regard to child support and assist him in fighting for custody. Two can play this game! 3) I will not fall for the Villain, no matter how Cute and Sexy he may be. Even if he is _so_ understanding about how neglectful the Hero has been lately. I will also be careful what I eat and drink while in his company. However, I _will_ agree when he asks me to betray the hero, though with apparent tearful reluctance. Then I will immediately tell the Hero what's up. Sound communication is the basis of a strong relationship! 4) I will not dress up in a harem costume. It never helps (unless the Hero has been unusually dim about one's charms...I'll think about it). 5) I will not hesitate to lie about the Secret Location of the Rebel Base. 6) Batting my eyelashes hardly ever helps, except on really stupid guards. But really stupid guards often carry blasters and/or code keys. 7) When told I must marry Guy of Gisborne or die, bring on the wedding gown. And I'll cry at the funeral, too. You never know what's in the will. 8) And I will cut the hero the same slack. Those bridegrooms could be carrying lethal weapons and/or holding someone hostage. 9) And whenever an enemy falls and it is practicable, I will pick up whatever blasters I can carry, and throw the rest down the chute. Waste not, want not. Hope you enjoy! Jean Lamb, from Klamath Falls, Oregon, tlambs@magick.net http://www.sff.net/people/jeanlamb. Just hired to work part-time at a library near me! (whip me, beat me, MAKE me get paid for working with books!). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:58:15 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Godzilla (was re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars -Reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Debra Euler wrote: > Looks like it may be pretty good. I'll wait for video. It's the same two who are responsible for _Stargate_ and _Independence Day_ who did this one. I don't know if I can stand yet another poorly plotted movie from those guys... > However, maybe Godzilla is female. After all, the "illa" ending > generally denotes a feminine name. I've got this vague notion that one of the movies (after all, how many of them are there? 30?) does mention this...now I'm curious...about the old ones, though. Definitely would add to the entire "earth mother/destroyer" bit, no? - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:01:25 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: Pam Keesey and _Vamps_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Intro: Good Girls and Bad > 1: "Good Evening, I am ... Vampira." > 2: The Goddess in Every Vampire > 3: "All Wickedness is but Little to the Wickedness of a Woman." > 4: The Rise of the Modern Vampire > 5: The Romantic Agony: 19th Century Images of the Fatal Woman > 6: Theda Bara: Face of a Vampire, Heart of a Feminist > 7: Sirens of the Silver Screen > 8: "Cinderella in a Nightmare": The Allure of the Female Vampire > 9: "She Gives You that Wierd Feeling": The Golden Age of Lesbian > Vampires > 10: That's No Lady, That's Sharon Stone > 11: Vamps and Vampires: The Nineties and Beyond > 12: In Praise of Wicked Women > Okay! I'm sold...just point me to a bookstore and I'll have my plastic ready... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:25:41 -0400 Reply-To: gamgee@geocities.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Organization: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keri Stone wrote: > Media and Millennium is a new course that explores a variety of > futurist > scenarios created by leading storytellers of our time. Readings will > include > a series of science fiction novels, short stories and essays by > prominent > writers, scientists and philosophers that explore the impact of > technology on > our lives beyond the year 2000. Pardon me, but the new millenium doesn't start until 12:01am, January 1, 2001, so it should be "beyond the year 2001." - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Denise Borgen Subject: Re: Tepper's pseudonyms In-Reply-To: <199711141648.QAA09477@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Robin Reid wrote: > Just in case ya'll don't know: Sherri Tepper publishes mysteries under the > "names" of B.J. Olpiphant and A.J. Orde (last names are correct, the first > initials might be reversed)--the Oliphant series has a female protagonist > (in her fifties/sixties), and the Orde a male protagonist. They do have > Tepper's name on the covers, but if you're not wandering around looking at > mystery covers you might miss them. I'm a major completist myself, but > haven't heard of her poetry! Gasp! Robin > She has also published under the name Horlak for horror. Still looking for early Tepper? me too. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Denise M. Borgen ~ One half of the world cannot ~ ~ ~ understand the pleasures of ~ ~ ~ the other. ~ ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ - Jane Austen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:36:31 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: sc Subject: Maureen F. McHugh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Someone - can't recall who - said they thought "China Mountain Zhang" would make a good movie. I agree. I enjoyed it a lot, the characters are so human and believable, and it's quite gripping. Has anyone read "Half the Day is Night" by McHugh? I'm finding it a bit disappointing. The writing is very good but the characters seem somehow more one-dimensional than "Zhang" and the plot is difficult to grasp. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers SC -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:40:08 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Species traitor (was: Stormship Troopers) Stacey's mention of Anne McCaffrey reminded me of the books she wrote with other writers in the Sassinak Universe (Sassinak, Death of Sleep...) I think Sassinak especially would make a good movie. Plenty of Battles, and a coming of age story with a strong female lead. And something adolescent girls might repond to. Basically, a fun story that could have a enough Hollywood elements to actually be considered, yet still presents women favorably. Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:42:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi, While Scott's adventures of Trouble (I dont remember the actual title) is a great book and would fit the course description, it does contain somewhat graphic lesbian sex scenes ... I don't know what high schoolers are reading these days. sheryl > ---------- > From: Keri Stone[SMTP:Dinnally@AOL.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 12:02 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] looking for recommendations for course > > Hi, > > One of my collegues has asked me for some recommendations for his > class next > semester. I teach in a private high school (the students are fairly > sophisticated readers). He is interested in novels, short stories and > essays > by women I know that they currently read Gibson and Stephenson and > some > other cyberpunk novels, and he is disturbed because he does not have > any > female authors. Although I read a ton of sci-fi, I mostly stay away > from > cyberpunk so I wasn't sure what to recommend. I guess it doesn't have > to be > cyberpunk, but it should cretainly focus on technology of the future. > I > already suggested Melissa Scott and Raphael Carter's Fortunate Fall. I > wasn't > positive which Melissa Scott would be a good recommedation. Below is a > description of his class in case you can think of any good fits. Any > suggestions about any authors, particularly feminist ones, would be > appreciated. > > Thanks Keri > PS: I'm sorry if there have been recent posts on this subject already > and > would appreciate anyone sending me a summary privately. > > Media and Millennium is a new course that explores a variety of > futurist > scenarios created by leading storytellers of our time. Readings will > include > a series of science fiction novels, short stories and essays by > prominent > writers, scientists and philosophers that explore the impact of > technology on > our lives beyond the year 2000. The class will also screen a variety > of films > set in the future and explore the themes they raise. The course will > emphasize the role technology plays in shaping these future realities > and how > it might change or challenge present day boundaries between man and > machine. > Students will use digital technologies to create a variety of > multi-media > essays including an internal web site run off the school's CABBS > server to > document their exploration of the third millennium. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:44:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Heroine's Rules 1-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks, Pat!! Some of these would become obsolete, if we could just have two heroines, but probably nto as many as one might hope for... 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: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:08:02 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, I know that my senior year, we read Toni Morrison's _Beloved_ . Quite a book if I do say so myself. Graphic sex, infanticide, rape, murder, violence, the whole bit. I would call it excellent literature though. Becca -----Original Message----- From: Stahl, Sheryl To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] looking for recommendations for course >Hi, >While Scott's adventures of Trouble (I dont remember the actual title) >is a great book and would fit the course description, it does contain >somewhat graphic lesbian sex scenes ... I don't know what high schoolers >are reading these days. >sheryl > >> ---------- >> From: Keri Stone[SMTP:Dinnally@AOL.COM] >> Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian >> literature >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 1997 12:02 PM >> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> Subject: [*FSFFU*] looking for recommendations for course >> >> Hi, >> >> One of my collegues has asked me for some recommendations for his >> class next >> semester. I teach in a private high school (the students are fairly >> sophisticated readers). He is interested in novels, short stories and >> essays >> by women I know that they currently read Gibson and Stephenson and >> some >> other cyberpunk novels, and he is disturbed because he does not have >> any >> female authors. Although I read a ton of sci-fi, I mostly stay away >> from >> cyberpunk so I wasn't sure what to recommend. I guess it doesn't have >> to be >> cyberpunk, but it should cretainly focus on technology of the future. >> I >> already suggested Melissa Scott and Raphael Carter's Fortunate Fall. I >> wasn't >> positive which Melissa Scott would be a good recommedation. Below is a >> description of his class in case you can think of any good fits. Any >> suggestions about any authors, particularly feminist ones, would be >> appreciated. >> >> Thanks Keri >> PS: I'm sorry if there have been recent posts on this subject already >> and >> would appreciate anyone sending me a summary privately. >> >> Media and Millennium is a new course that explores a variety of >> futurist >> scenarios created by leading storytellers of our time. Readings will >> include >> a series of science fiction novels, short stories and essays by >> prominent >> writers, scientists and philosophers that explore the impact of >> technology on >> our lives beyond the year 2000. The class will also screen a variety >> of films >> set in the future and explore the themes they raise. The course will >> emphasize the role technology plays in shaping these future realities >> and how >> it might change or challenge present day boundaries between man and >> machine. >> Students will use digital technologies to create a variety of >> multi-media >> essays including an internal web site run off the school's CABBS >> server to >> document their exploration of the third millennium. >> > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:17:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Feminist SF to make into film Comments: To: Jennifer Krauel In-Reply-To: <346B4092.7B1B3549@actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'd cast my vote for Russ' "Picnic on Paradise," or -- for those of you who like horror -- Tiptree/Sheldon's "The Screwfly Solution." Or, for that matter, Vonda's "Dreamsnake." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:30:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Susan Palwick Subject: Re: Maureen F. McHugh In-Reply-To: <346CFC8E.420E@schant.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Yes, I also was disappointed by "Half the Day is Night" in comparison with "China Mountain Zhang." I think I recall hearing somewhere that she'd written "Half the Day" first but sold it second, a fairly common occurence that could explain a lot. I could be wrong about this, though. Check out McHugh's web page! She has some great stuff on it, including a wonderful, wonderful essay about being a stepmother. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:29:41 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Intro/tie-ins/Star Wars -Reply In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > When >they were on location in the NYC area earlier this year we got hit by >some severe thunderstorms (I'm in Manhattan). They filmed a real >waterspout in New York harbor and said it was so cool that they had >to put it in the final movie. So watch for that! The snow scene at the end of "Farenheit 415" was similar -- there was an unseasonably early snowfall on location, so they quick did the scene. Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:36:02 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course In-Reply-To: <971114120236_1181164829@mrin43.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >One of my collegues has asked me for some recommendations for his class next >semester. I teach in a private high school (the students are fairly >sophisticated readers). He is interested in novels, short stories and essays >by women I know that they currently read Gibson and Stephenson and some >other cyberpunk novels, and he is disturbed because he does not have any >female authors. Although I read a ton of sci-fi, I mostly stay away from >cyberpunk so I wasn't sure what to recommend. I guess it doesn't have to be >cyberpunk, but it should cretainly focus on technology of the future. I >already suggested Melissa Scott and Raphael Carter's Fortunate Fall. I wasn't >positive which Melissa Scott would be a good recommedation. Below is a >description of his class in case you can think of any good fits. Any >suggestions about any authors, particularly feminist ones, would be >appreciated. Your first problem is that things go in and out of print almost hourly. I've known of sf classes which had 100% turnover in the reading list from one semester to the next. A somewhat recent title you may like is Linda Nagata's _The Bohr Maker_. I'm sure the listmembers here will give you plenty of other suggestions. Also, look around on the net. I can't point to it directly, but someone does a periodical survey naming the "100 best" sf novels. I wouldn't necessarily take it completely as gospel, but it's a very good starting place. Also, see if you can find the lists of the Hugo *nominees* for the past several years. The lists of nominees are likely to be a better guide to the best than just the list of winners. Have fun! Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:47:43 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Maureen F. McHugh In-Reply-To: <346CFC8E.420E@schant.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Someone - can't recall who - said they thought "China Mountain Zhang" >would make a good movie. I agree. I enjoyed it a lot, the characters are >so human and believable, and it's quite gripping. Has anyone read "Half >the Day is Night" by McHugh? I'm finding it a bit disappointing. The >writing is very good but the characters seem somehow more >one-dimensional than "Zhang" and the plot is difficult to grasp. Any >comments would be appreciated. I've been told that the publishing order is reversed: Her first novel was _Half the Day Is Night_, but it didn't sell until _China Mountain Zhang_, actually her second novel, did. (Unless I'm confusing the story with Linda Nagata. Unless they're both in the same situation.) Neil Rest NeilRest@tezcat.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I just glanced at the list at: http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/subcyberpunk.html I had forgotten about Marge Piercy's _He, she, and it_ - excellent excellent book - I would highly recommend it for a class or anyone else. sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:30:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edrie J Sobstyl Subject: Re: Tepper's pseudonyms In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Maryelizabeth, I think it's time for you to repost your "compleat works of S. S. Tepper" again ... edrie On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:26:02 -0800 Denise Borgen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Robin Reid wrote: > > > Just in case ya'll don't know: Sherri Tepper publishes mysteries under the > > "names" of B.J. Olpiphant and A.J. Orde (last names are correct, the first > > initials might be reversed)--the Oliphant series has a female protagonist > > (in her fifties/sixties), and the Orde a male protagonist. They do have > > Tepper's name on the covers, but if you're not wandering around looking at > > mystery covers you might miss them. I'm a major completist myself, but > > haven't heard of her poetry! Gasp! Robin > > > She has also published under the name Horlak for horror. > > Still looking for early Tepper? me too. > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ Denise M. Borgen ~ One half of the world cannot ~ > ~ ~ understand the pleasures of ~ > ~ ~ the other. ~ > ~ borgen@eskimo.com ~ - Jane Austen ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Edrie Sobstyl School of Arts and Humanities University of Texas at Dallas P.O. Box 830688 Richardson Tx 75083-0688 (972) 883-2365 (972) 883-2989 (fax) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:38:06 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19971114133602.006af4a0@tezcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit http://www.clark.net/pub/iz/Books/Top100/top100list.txt" is the URL for the Internet Top 100 SF/Fantasy List. An amazing resource for sf information is http://sflovers.rutgers.edu/Web/SFRG/ I would be amazed if it didn't include a list of Hugo and Nebula nominees, or a link to such a list. A good resource for out of print books (especially science fiction, though not limited to sf; the sf bias occurred because I started the project and most of the writers I know are sf writers) is Basement Full of Books -- books available by mail directly from their authors. It's got all sorts of material available on it now, including the audiotape for ALWAYS COMING HOME, via the composer; but a majority of what's listed is regular trade or mass-market books that the writers have obtained when their publishers whipped them out of print. The URL is http://www.sff.net/bfob (I used to send it out by email on request, but it's way too long for that. Jeffry Dwight, bless his heart, gave it a new home and automated its updates. By the way, if you're a writer and you have a basement full of extra books, I encourage you to add your listing to the resource and link to it from your web page -- it would be a courtesy to link to the main page, the URL above, rather than directly to your own listing, so folks going to it would have the opportunity to browse the author list. The project is very laid back; you won't get rich from it -- or, if you do, could you clue the rest of us in on how? -- but the price is right; it's free.) I can't speak for the other writers on the list -- each of us deals directly with book buyers, a strategy I adopted so I would never have to handle anyone else's money, but I would be delighted to discuss a large discount for classes buying five or more copies of one of my hardcovers, especially Superluminal, which was published without advertising, apparently on the theory that it would leap to enormous success on the coattails of Dreamsnake. (Comment from a bookstore owner soon after Superluminal and one of my Star Trek books were published: "So -- when are you going to write another REAL book?") Especially if you don't mind copies with very slightly scuffed or bent dust jackets, I could make you a Really Good Deal. Something else to remember about BFoB is that if there's something you want and you don't see it in the writer's listing -- ask. Most of us have a few copies of almost everything (not the first edition of DREAMSNAKE, alas -- I wish). I personally would be delighted to hear from language teachers who'd like translations of sf novels to foreign languages (especially French or German). I could probably even be persuaded to give them to a good cause. Vonda On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:36:02 -0600, Neil Rest wrote: ... >Your first problem is that things go in and out of print almost hourly. >I've known of sf classes which had 100% turnover in the reading list from >one semester to the next. > http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:37:35 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sarah Nagelbush Subject: Re: looking for recommendations for course In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I love _He, She, and It_ It's one of my fav. sf books Sarah Tired of water all the time You quench my heart and oh you quench my mind. -Two Step ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:52:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Re: Feminist SF to make into film Very much on topic is this article I pulled off of the Sci-Fi Wire web site (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/) 11.22 am ET, 7-Nov-97 Butler's Kindred Headed To Film Kindred, the Hugo and Nebula Award-winning novel by famed SF author Octavia E. Butler, is headed for the silver screen courtesy of Def Pictures and Polygram Filmed Entertainment, according to Variety. The two film companies bought the adaptation of Butler's novel from Nicholas Brandt and Bridget Blake-Wilson, with Brandt attached to the project as director. Kindred is a time travel novel about a modern black woman who is repeatedly drawn back to the 19th-century South by her white, slave-owning ancestor. Eventually the woman is faced with the choice of saving the man from death, knowing that if she does so he will eventually enslave a free-born black woman who will turn out to become her own great-grandmother. According to Variety, the reclusive Butler, who was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, has rarely allowed her novels to be optioned for film. Actress Talia Shire held the rights to Kindred for eight years, but when she failed to renew them in 1996, they were snapped up by Brandt. --Sci-Fi Wire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:40:30 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: "Walk to the End of the World" Content-Type: text/plain Look more closely at the cover: the cover of my (US, Paperback) edition of "walk" has a kneeling woman in the foreground... who is holding a knife hidden against her thigh. It *is* a dark book, but I find it to be one of my favorite feminist SF books, in part because the antifeminist, dystopian society it presents is so interesting and plausible. Much of the book is written from the viewpoint of young men growing up in that society, and it almost reads as a traditional SF Post-Holocaust Bildungsroman... gone bad. The Stronghold is a nasty place, but there are reasons why it is so nasty, and the male characters are aware of some of those defects and want to fix them... This is unlike some feminist SF novels where the dystopian society seems pointlessly brutal and bloody-minded. (and why do so many feminist utopian novels contain an antifeminist, dystopian society that is the enemy of the utopian one? There is a kind of Manichean quality to this. I wonder what other people think of this.) Anyway, this quality in "Walk" reminded me a little of Spinrad's _The Iron Dream_ (a novel purporting to be the classic SF novel, _Lords of the Swastika_ by 40's emigre SF writer Adolf Hitler. The novell brilliantly satirizes the fascist tendencies of some SF, and contains some feminist themes as well), in that I experienced a certain tension while reading it -- on the one hand, I was repulsed by Stronghold society, whille on the other, my habits of reading from 20 years of SF fandom made me want to read about the male protagonists reforming the Stronghold, and going on to colonize the blasted wastelands all around. I don't know if this was the author's intended effect (the market share for feminist SF novels targeted at male Army officers is pretty small I guess) but it made for a very interesting reading experience. I would love to hear what other listmembers think about these issues, including Ms. Charnas (if she is still on the list). With respect, Dan Krashin P.S. I am sorry to see Ms. Arnason go. I too would prefer to have a list that emphasizes written SF rather than media SF, but I will continue to receive the list and make copious use of my PgDwn key. It's a free net, after all... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:44:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Buzz Review Subject: Hello, everyone! Hi, I'm Leann. I love science fiction, fantasy and horror. I'm looking forward to getting to know y'all. Leann http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/buzzreview/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:49:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Martha Bartter Subject: Re: SF or not SF; Atwood; Inclusiveness/Heinlein In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 23:07 11/13/97 -0600, you wrote: >On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Robin Reid wrote: > --snip-- And Mike replied: >It seems to me that anyone who thinks that Ray Bradbury isn't a science >fiction or fantasy writer (not counting his mysteries and Irish stories) >shouldn't be allowed to give papers or write about him because they >obviously don't KNOW anything about him. > >Mike Levy > > Mike: would you consider Ray Bradbury an ANTI-science fiction writer? I do. Martha Bartter Truman State University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:16:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Tepper's pseudonyms Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Maryelizabeth, I think it's time for you to repost your >"compleat works of S. S. Tepper" again ... > > edrie > Okay, twist my arm... The Sheri Tepper web page at the fem-sf site (http://www.uic.edu/~lauramd/femsf/tepper.html) Tepper's poetry: as Sheri S. Eberhart "Lullaby, 1990" in Galaxy, 12/63 Tepper's horror: _The Bones_ '86 _Blood Heritage_ '86 and a stunning vampire novella, "The Gardener", published in _Night Visions 6_, aka _The Bone Yard_ '88 as E.E. Horlak : _Still Life_ '88 Her SF novels include (more or less chronologically): _The Revenants_ '84 _King's Blood Four_* '83 _Necromancer Nine_* '83 _Wizard's Eleven_* '84 _The Song of Mavin Manyshaped_* '85 _The Flight of Mavin Manyshaped_* '85 _The Search of Mavin Manyshaped_* '85 _Jinian Footseer_* '85 _Devrish Daughter_* '86 _Jinian Star-Eye_* '86 * a trio of trilogies set in the same fantastic world _The Awakeners_ (_Northshore, Vol. I_; _Southshore, Vol. II_) '87/'87 _Marianne, the Magus, and the Manticore_ '85 _Marianne, the Madame, and the Momentary Gods_ '88 _Marianne, the Matchbox, and the Malachite Mouse_ '89 _After Long Silence_ '87 _The Gate to Women's Country_ '88 _Beauty_ '91 _Grass_ \ '89 _Raising the Stones_ loose trilogy '90 _Sideshow_ / '92 _A Plague of Angels_ '93 _Shadow's End_ '94 _Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ '96 _The Family Tree_ '97 She also writes mysteries under two psuedonyms: The Jason Lynx mysteries by A.J. Orde, featuring a Colorado antiques dealer and his SO, a (female) police officer: _A Little Neighborhood Murder_ '89 _Death and the Dogwalker_ '90 _Death for Old Time's Sake_ '92 _Dead on Sunday_ (aka _Looking for the Aardvark_) '94 /'93 _A Long Time Dead_ '95 _Death of Innocents_ '97 The Shirley McClintock mysteries by B.J. Oliphant, featuring a Colorado rancher cum New Mexico B&B Ranch owner: _Dead in the Scrub_ '90 _The Unexpected Corpse_ '90 _Deservedly Dead_ '92 _Death and the Delinquent_ '93 _Death Served up Cold_ '94 _A Ceremonial Death_ '96 _Here's to the Newly Deads_ '97 Not that I'm an obsessive completist, or anything. But I thought folks might like to know.:) Note: all dates are taken from my American editions. 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: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:26:41 -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: Maureen F. McHugh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > Has anyone read "Half > the Day is Night" by McHugh? I'm finding it a bit disappointing. The > writing is very good but the characters seem somehow more > one-dimensional than "Zhang" and the plot is difficult to grasp. Maureen says this novel is written in three "movements," as in musical movements. The three movements are divided by the two main characters' (David & Mayla's) situations, together or separate, and attitudes toward each other, indifferent or interdependent. Hope this helps focus the book. (I haven't finished reading it either.) -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "We live in Gothic times." - Angela Carter ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:58:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nina Brown Subject: Petition in support of American Airlines non discrimination policy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read and see if you can support this effort. >>> >>> >>> Forwarded Message Follows:: >>> >>> American Airlines is a major sponsor and supporter of groups like >>> GLADD, the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay and Lesbian Victory >>> Fund, the AIDS Action Foundation, DIFFA, AmFAR, and scores of >>> community-based groups representing gays and lesbians. It is also >>> the first airline to adopt a written non-discrimination policy >>> covering sexual orientation in its employment practices. >>> >>> In an unusual joint letter released to the media on Friday, March >>> 14th from the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, >>> American Family Association and Coral Ridge Ministries, American >>> Airlines was openly criticized about their policy. Radical right >>> leader to blast American Airlines because -American's sponsorship >>> of homosexual 'pride' events constitutes an open endorsement of >>> promiscuous homosexuality.- >>> >>> She and the other groups have written Bob Crandall at American to >>> complain that the airline has 3gone beyond mere tolerance_ of >>> gays and lesbians. >>> >>> The full article appears in Friday's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and >>> possibly picked up by other newspapers around the country. >>> >>> It has come to the attention of the gay and lesbian community that >>> American Airline's switchboard and e-mails are being bombarded now >>> by homophobic and hateful callers who have been urged by LaHaye >>> and others to DEMAND the company terminate its gay-friendly >>> policies. >>> >>> Please add your name to this petition and forward it to as many >>> people as you can. To add your name just cut and paste this onto >>> new mail and send it out! >>> >>> ***if you are the 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th, etc. person to sign this >>> petition then also please forward this to American Airlines at: >>> Webmaster@amrcorp.com *** >>> >>> To American Airlines: >>> We, the undersigned, support your gay/lesbian rights policies and >>> commend you for your efforts in ending discrimination. Thank you >>> for your dedication to such issues and please continue to remain >>> active in the struggle to end discrimination. >>> Signed, >>> >>> 1. Ramon Araiza, Houston, TX >>> 2. David Hernandez, Houston, TX >>> 3. Blake Lawrence, San Francisco, CA >>> 4. Bill Hutchcroft, San Francisco, CA >>> 5. Joe Cooper, San Francisco >>> 6. Greg Pabst, San Francisco, CA >>> 7. Rachel Schulson, Chattanooga, TN >>> 8. Karin Jones, Garland, TX >>> 9. Cindy Ash, Houston, TX >>> 10. Guy Waguespack, Houston TX >>> 11. Michael Dean, Houston TX >>> 12. Kacey Brown, Houston TX >>> 13. Paul Gandy, Houston TX >>> 14. Paul Uong, Houston, TX >>> 15. Greg Fredo, Houston TX >>> 16. Harold Romberg, Houston, TX >>> 17. Jason Yovandich, Washington, DC >>> 18. Jeff Godell, Houston, TX >>> 19. Tony Siytangco, Houston TX >>> 20. Porter Moore, Houston TX >>> 21. Jeff Popovich, Washington, DC >>> 22. John Wise, Houston TX >>> 23. David W. Bulger, Orlando, FL >>> 24. Jeffrey Jones, Orlando, FL >>> 25. Stephen Herring, Orlando, FL >>> 26. Ed Mikovsky, Atlanta, GA >>> 27. Laura Kneeburg, Gainesville, FL >>> 28. James Waddell, Gainesville, FL >>> 29. Charles Flowers, Gainesville FL >>> 30. Pattie S. Green, Gainesville FL >>> 31. Heather Steingraber, Philadelphia, PA >>> 32. Deborah Stinnett, Philadelphia, PA. >>> 33. Nell Booth, Ardmore, PA >>> 34. David Booth, Minneapolis, MN >>> 35. Ann Tobin, Minneapolis, MN >>> 36. Ursula Bartels, NJ >>> 37. Janice Hicks, Washington DC >>> 38. Katharine Andriotis, White Plains NY >>> 39. Liz Wagner, Sleepy Hollow, NY >> 40. Carey Wagner, New York, New York >> 41. Lisa R. Green, New York, NY >> 42. Nina C. Brown, Wilmington, North Carolina ********************************************************************** ******** Janice M. Hicks Associate Professor Director, GU Center for the Environment Department of Chemistry Georgetown University Washington DC 20057-0001 voice 202-687-5872 fax 202-687-6209 Laser/Surface Chemical Research: see our web page http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/chemistry/chemistry.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 23:42:46 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Re: [WIG] Fw: [*FSFFU*] Petition in support of American Airlines non discrimination policy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry folks, I sent this to WIG, don't know how it got back here... - >-----Original Message----- >From: Nina Brown >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Friday, November 14, 1997 9:55 PM >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Petition in support of American Airlines non >discrimination policy > > >>Please read and see if you can support this effort. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forwarded Message Follows:: >>>>> >>>>> American Airlines is a major sponsor and supporter of groups like >>>>> GLADD, the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay and Lesbian Victory >>>>> Fund, the AIDS Action Foundation, DIFFA, AmFAR, and scores of >>>>> community-based groups representing gays and lesbians. It is also >>>>> the first airline to adopt a written non-discrimination policy >>>>> covering sexual orientation in its employment practices. >>>>> >>>>> In an unusual joint letter released to the media on Friday, March >>>>> 14th from the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, >>>>> American Family Association and Coral Ridge Ministries, American >>>>> Airlines was openly criticized about their policy. Radical right >>>>> leader to blast American Airlines because -American's sponsorship >>>>> of homosexual 'pride' events constitutes an open endorsement of >>>>> promiscuous homosexuality.- >>>>> >>>>> She and the other groups have written Bob Crandall at American to >>>>> complain that the airline has 3gone beyond mere tolerance_ of >>>>> gays and lesbians. >>>>> >>>>> The full article appears in Friday's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and >>>>> possibly picked up by other newspapers around the country. >>>>> >>>>> It has come to the attention of the gay and lesbian community that >>>>> American Airline's switchboard and e-mails are being bombarded now >>>>> by homophobic and hateful callers who have been urged by LaHaye >>>>> and others to DEMAND the company terminate its gay-friendly >>>>> policies. >>>>> >>>>> Please add your name to this petition and forward it to as many >>>>> people as you can. To add your name just cut and paste this onto >>>>> new mail and send it out! >>>>> >>>>> >>***if you are the 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th, etc. person to sign this >>>>> petition then also please forward this to American Airlines at: >>>>> Webmaster@amrcorp.com *** >>>>> >>>>> To American Airlines: >>>>> We, the undersigned, support your gay/lesbian rights policies and >>>>> commend you for your efforts in ending discrimination. Thank you >>>>> for your dedication to such issues and please continue to remain >>>>> active in the struggle to end discrimination. >> >>>>> Signed, >>>>> >>>>> 1. Ramon Araiza, Houston, TX >>>>> 2. David Hernandez, Houston, TX >>>>> 3. Blake Lawrence, San Francisco, CA >>>>> 4. Bill Hutchcroft, San Francisco, CA >>>>> 5. Joe Cooper, San Francisco >>>>> 6. Greg Pabst, San Francisco, CA >>>>> 7. Rachel Schulson, Chattanooga, TN >>>>> 8. Karin Jones, Garland, TX >>>>> 9. Cindy Ash, Houston, TX >>>>> 10. Guy Waguespack, Houston TX >>>>> 11. Michael Dean, Houston TX >>>>> 12. Kacey Brown, Houston TX >>>>> 13. Paul Gandy, Houston TX >>>>> 14. Paul Uong, Houston, TX >>>>> 15. Greg Fredo, Houston TX >>>>> 16. Harold Romberg, Houston, TX >>>>> 17. Jason Yovandich, Washington, DC >>>>> 18. Jeff Godell, Houston, TX >>>>> 19. Tony Siytangco, Houston TX >>>>> 20. Porter Moore, Houston TX >>>>> 21. Jeff Popovich, Washington, DC >>>>> 22. John Wise, Houston TX >>>>> 23. David W. Bulger, Orlando, FL >>>>> 24. Jeffrey Jones, Orlando, FL >>>>> 25. Stephen Herring, Orlando, FL >>>>> 26. Ed Mikovsky, Atlanta, GA >>>>> 27. Laura Kneeburg, Gainesville, FL >>>>> 28. James Waddell, Gainesville, FL >>>>> 29. Charles Flowers, Gainesville FL >>>>> 30. Pattie S. Green, Gainesville FL >>>>> 31. Heather Steingraber, Philadelphia, PA >>>>> 32. Deborah Stinnett, Philadelphia, PA. >>>>> 33. Nell Booth, Ardmore, PA >>>>> 34. David Booth, Minneapolis, MN >>>>> 35. Ann Tobin, Minneapolis, MN >>>>> 36. Ursula Bartels, NJ >>>>> 37. Janice Hicks, Washington DC >>>>> 38. Katharine Andriotis, White Plains NY >>>>> 39. Liz Wagner, Sleepy Hollow, NY >>>> 40. Carey Wagner, New York, New York >>>> 41. Lisa R. Green, New York, NY >>>> 42. Nina C. Brown, Wilmington, North Carolina >>>> 43. Rebecca S. Stoler, New Orleans, LA >>********************************************************************** >>******** >>Janice M. Hicks >>Associate Professor >>Director, GU Center for the Environment >>Department of Chemistry >>Georgetown University >>Washington DC 20057-0001 >> >>voice 202-687-5872 >>fax 202-687-6209 >> >>Laser/Surface Chemical Research: >>see our web page >>http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/chemistry/chemistry.html >> > >