From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri May 22 09:18:32 1998 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:13:26 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9712A" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 01:41:09 -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: SF/Sci-Fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo, Barbara! :) As a fellow 24-year-old, I must agree with every statement you made there...perhaps it is a genrational thing we're worried about instead of a snobbishness thing? Tho', I have to admit that I completely hated _Terminator 2_.... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 01:51:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Strange Days movie Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I wonder if anyone saw Strange Days and what you think about it. It starts like a typical "action set in dark and gloomy future", and then they turn everything around in a very strange way. First, the main hero was not a traditional macho-type. He was pretty smart, sensitive, and not very good in fighting. Actually, if not his female best friend, he would have been killed many times before the movie was over. And he was not ashamed of not being of superhero, which is rather odd for action movies. Second, I really liked the character of the women who was his best friend. She was tough but not "butch", she was always there for him without slipping into sacrificing-for-the-man-she-loves or maternal-protection-of-poor-guy-in-trouble mode. Instead, it was a friendship of equals. Finally, in the end, after the main hero eventually saved the troubled girl from bad guys, he walked away from her and chose the strong woman instead. I think, this is the frist time I saw anything like that in mass culture. Normally, guys fight (and win) either for some poor little girl that needs help, or for his wife (preferrably already dead), or for some women-unrelated guys' issues. Strong women, in their turn, are fighting either _against_ the man they used to love, or to save a child in the absense of a man to do it, or they are not interested in men altogether (think Xena). But they never, ever fight to help their friend, who happens to be male, and on the top of it, end up in a relationship with him, who choses them over a helpless bimbo. I think, this is something new. I had not heard of this film before. And it might not be an artistic masterpiece. But I'd like to think of it as a sign that the tradition of sexism in action hero culture is going to pass away. What do you think? Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 00:21:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: l schmeiser Subject: sad news: Kathy Acker, RIP In-Reply-To: <971201000002_1504503721@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" forwarded to me: >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:52:35 -0800 (PST) >From: Michael Rosenthal <------------@well.com> >Subject: Kathy Acker, RIP >To:--------@list.sirius.com >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-------@list.sirius.com > > > > At 1 am Sunday November 30, 1997, Kathy Acker died peacefully, surrounded by > friends. She had been fighting cancer for months and, while very weak, was > in no pain and quite lucid as she went. We'll will miss Kathy, but it was > time for both her and her friends to let go. l i s a s c h m e i s e r diva@wired.com | 415-276-8476 "Yeah, yeah. We both saw that afterschool special. But i'm not an alcoholic, and you're not an ice skater. So let's go." - hank hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:36:10 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Adrian Marley Subject: Antwort: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have to agree with Marina on this one. "Strange Days" was a very underrated film and didn't perform well at the box office. I intended catching it in the cinema but it had disappeared after two weeks. When I finally caught up with it on video it was every bit as good as some reviews had suggested. It also has the distinction of being directed by a woman, Kathryn Bigelow, which is unusual for an action film. But it is a way above average action film. For a start it has a plot. It also has some wonderful actors: Ralph Fiennes, Angela Bassett and Juliet Lewis. It was produced by James Cameron and may also have been written by him. It's well worth a look. Adrian. "He's a man of few words but he keeps repeating them." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 07:13:22 -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: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina- This is close to the same reaction I had to _SD_ after I had seen it once. I discussed with a reading group of mine, specifically to help me iron out some details that were unsettling to me...and I came to the conclusion that I had really wanted to like it, but it was just plain bad. Fiennes's character is *not* a hero and doesn't try to be one. He is the protagonist, but Cameron is definitely not scripting a hero in that character. Bassett's character comes close to being the hero of the film, but saddled between idiotic lines and her character's unbelivable devotion to Fiennes's character, she falls short. We won't get into Lewis's character. All three of them are completely unbelievable after the first hour, and it gets worse in the second. I thought the movie was a mess. Nice visuals, and an attempt at a thought-provoking storyline (something Cameron seemed to have lost after _The Abyss_) give the movie the worthiness of a once-over when you're alone on a Friday night. Other than that, go rent _Taxi Driver_...there's believable self-destructive behavior with no pretty, bow-wrapped package at the end... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:56:08 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stefanie Jenssen Subject: Re: sad news: Kathy Acker, RIP In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This is really sad - I think she was one of the most exciting writers of present time. She deserved to write more of these mindboggling novels. Stefanie >forwarded to me: > >>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:52:35 -0800 (PST) >>From: Michael Rosenthal <------------@well.com> >>Subject: Kathy Acker, RIP >>To:--------@list.sirius.com >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Sender: owner-------@list.sirius.com >> >> >> >> At 1 am Sunday November 30, 1997, Kathy Acker died peacefully, surrounded by >> friends. She had been fighting cancer for months and, while very weak, was >> in no pain and quite lucid as she went. We'll will miss Kathy, but it was >> time for both her and her friends to let go. > >l i s a s c h m e i s e r >diva@wired.com | 415-276-8476 >"Yeah, yeah. We both saw that afterschool special. >But i'm not an alcoholic, and you're not an ice skater. >So let's go." > - hank hill ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:04:22 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 1 Dec 97 , MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > Finally, in the end, after the main hero eventually saved the > troubled girl from bad guys, he walked away from her and chose the > strong woman instead. I think, this is the frist time I saw anything > like that in mass culture. In the film-version I saw of _The Women in White_ of Wilkie Collins (not SF of course) at the end the hero does not want the 'women in white' he rescues but her sensible and trust-worthy friend. I read the novel afterwards and remember how disappointed I was that there the hero married the (IMO insipid) 'women in white' (name?) instead. The film-version I saw was in black and white, so probably done in the 30ties or 40ties. There are probably others. At the moment I can remember only one other movie with a triangle hero, woman in distress, helpful woman and that's _Vertigo_ by Hitchcock (and it does not fit exactly), but there are probably more. However, it is hard to imagine that a movie with such a construction (in which the hero ends up with the woman in distress) would be accepted by the viewers nowadays. So, apparently there was some progress, women do no longer have to act the helpless part so that it is acceptable that they get the hero. See e.g. how popular the heroine in _Speed_ was. So, what about other triangles: heroine, men in distress, helpful man. Which one should she take in the end? Perhaps none. Petra P.S. on netetiquette: > I wonder if anyone saw Strange Days and what you think about it. >From the context I derived that Strange Days is a new movie fresh in the cinemas in the US (true?). As this happened before with Contact, Gattaca, Space Troopers, etc., a request to all US residents: all these movies come out in Europe months later, especially if they are synchronised (probably the same is true for the other continents, perhaps even Canada), so often we non-US-Americans have never heard of them before. So please if a movie is mentioned the first times, give some indication that it is a movie (when Gattaca was referred to the first time, I was completely bewildered, I thought it was an important novel I had missed) and perhaps provide some context. Thank you. ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:29:41 GMT+100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <971125182913_1570650145@mrin86.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Last week I saw in a bookstore that a small (German) publisher specialised on women's/feminist literature (Ariadne) has started a new series some time ago (their mystery novel series is well established by now). From the description I gather they intend to publish feminist SF and/or SF by female authors. They called the series 'Social Fantasy'. One can only speculate why they did not call it 'Science Fiction' (we use the English term in German) and why they used another English expression. Is 'Social Fantasy' by any chance an established expression, which I have simply missed? By the way, is the term 'Science Fiction' used in other languages, too, or have there been other names created for it? I suppose, the French have a French expression for SF. Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:56:33 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stefanie Jenssen Subject: Re: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: <34829BCF.3C70DD97@geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think it is completely in favour for SD that it produces strong opinions. I've seen the film four times (showing it twice to students in a feminist group at the university of Oslo). First time I saw it, I really enjoyed it, after about the third time the film fades a bit like a much handled photograph - but I still think it is outstanding. Geoffrey - >Fiennes's character is *not* a hero and doesn't try to be one... Bassett's >>character comes close to being the hero of the film, but saddled between >>idiotic lines and her character's unbelivable >devotion to Fiennes's character, she falls short. To me the characters were believable, they were just unusual. The setting was not a typical action movie setting, where the central fighting scenes are set in closed off surroundings (like Aliens or Terminator), it was a depressively urban jungle - a much more alien area to put a strong female character into - and (even if I am in danger of stepping into a minefield here) - the best urban scenes (including the night club scene) aspired to Bladerunner atmosphere. Geoffrey - >I thought the movie was a mess. Nice visuals, and an attempt at a >thought-provoking storyline (something Cameron seemed to have lost after >_The Abyss_) give the movie the worthiness of a once-over when you're >alone on a Friday night. Other than that, go rent _Taxi >Driver_...there's believable self-destructive behavior with no pretty, >bow-wrapped package at the end... I had no problems accepting the story. There is one issue in this movie which other sf-action-horror movies scarcely dare to express, and if they do, then they keep it inside accepted postmodern irony (like the "good father line" in Terminator II): and that is love. Bassett's unbelievable devotion and Fiennes unbelievable self-destructive behaviour - aren't you just disappointed that the strong woman has affections for a weak man - and that the man is not exactly successful at being self-destructive ? (which is such a long-standing - and boring - myth with modern man). I mean SD is a pretty well told fairy tale. The end (especially the last 15 min) - are a let-down if you insist on a realistic ending. But I occasionally enjoy a bit of sentimental sf-cinema. Stefanie There is more information about SD on these URLs: gopher://ftp.std.com:70/00/periodicals/Middlesex-News/movies/Strange%20Days http://cinenet.ch/previews/s/StrangeDays/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:26:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <971201000002_1504503721@mrin46.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Barbara Benesch wrote: > > Neil, I can understand how when people were trying to pass "Attack of the > Rutabega That Ate Albequerque" as comparable to Tolkien in the science > fiction world, the distinction between "real" science fiction and "not-real" > science fiction was important. He's been out of office a couple of years now.> 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, 1 Dec 1997 11:28:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi On Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:26:42 -0800 Pat writes: >On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Barbara Benesch wrote: > What ong should the tenor be able to ing?>> > > >"Wanted, one ghost. Experience and good character required. Ability to >ing >tenor an advantage. Apply Paris Opera before New Years, 1882." > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:29:17 -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: Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <45081CB1358@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > Last week I saw in a bookstore that a small (German) publisher > specialised on women's/feminist literature (Ariadne) has started a > new series some time ago (their mystery novel series is well > established by now). From the description I gather they intend to > publish feminist SF and/or SF by female authors. They called the > series 'Social Fantasy'. One can only speculate why they did not call > it 'Science Fiction' (we use the English term in German) and why they > used another English expression. Is 'Social Fantasy' by any chance > an established expression, which I have simply missed? > > Petra > ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** > I don't think this is a term used with any currency in the English-Language science fiction and fantasy community, fan or academic. Social Science Fiction is a commonly used term, however. Perhaps the publisher decided on Social Fantasy because she wanted to include books that were clearly not SF. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:36:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: Re: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Wow, I can hardly believe you're talking about the same Strange Days that I saw. I saw it as a very early preview at my university. Do you think the movie makers took our reviews seriously and re-edited the godawful thing before opening it a couple of months later? I think they must have because I can't believe you're talking about the same flick. I thought it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. I was offended at every turn by mindless, shallow dialogue and the heavy-handed attempts to stir feminist ire. I hated the ploys: see, the bad guys are really bad--they turn rape and torture into a fun, money-making scheme; see, the good guys are really good 'cuz they're weepy, they get upset when they see women treated badly, and they're nice to kids. The bad/slutty girl no decent-female-movie-goer can relate to gets treated (dismissed) like a bad/slutty girl; the good, maternal everywoman gets rewarded by good guys and almost-bad guys alike. The ending is beyond bad. When the big, white man came down from the skies like god to help the poor, frightened, brown girl (can you say white, middle-class guilt?) people groaned and laughed and walked out of the theater. Now I'll grant you that the reaction of the students may be stronger than that of the average theater-goer because my school has a larger than average proportion of African-American, Latino, and Filipino students. The biggest laugh of the night came at the end of the movie, after the ridiculously cliched chase through the crowd (with gratuitous violence perpetrated on innocent bystanders just to show how bad the bad guys are in case you were really stupid and didn't get it earlier), when the good folks get saved by the guy in the helicopter. A woman yelled, "Oh yeah, here comes da Man. I wonder how big his gun is?" I stuck around to fill out the questionnaire so I could express the depth of my disgust for this idiotic film. The embarrassing part is I was the one who forced my friends to go see it because it had a female director and starred a non-white woman. They only went because it was free. Needless to say, I'm not allowed to pick films for these friends anymore.... I think they must have fixed the film before general release. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:42:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <45081CB1358@iers1.ier.uni-stuttgart.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would love it if you could get me some information about that publisher or any other work from them. On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:29:41 GMT+100 > From: Petra Mayerhofer > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi > > Last week I saw in a bookstore that a small (German) publisher > specialised on women's/feminist literature (Ariadne) has started a > new series some time ago (their mystery novel series is well > established by now). From the description I gather they intend to > publish feminist SF and/or SF by female authors. They called the > series 'Social Fantasy'. One can only speculate why they did not call > it 'Science Fiction' (we use the English term in German) and why they > used another English expression. Is 'Social Fantasy' by any chance > an established expression, which I have simply missed? > > By the way, is the term 'Science Fiction' used in other languages, > too, or have there been other names created for it? I suppose, the > French have a French expression for SF. > > Petra > ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** > Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:14:02 -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: Antwort: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just wanted to point out (here my women and film class is actually useful...) That while women directing action films might be unusual, it is not unusual for Kathryn Bigelow. She also directed _Point Break_, _Blue Steel_ (with Jamie Lee Curtis, I've seen this one), as well as a few more films. Just FYI misha >---------- >From: Adrian Marley[SMTP:Adrian.Marley@O-TEL-O.DE] >Sent: Monday, December 01, 1997 1:36 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Antwort: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie > >I have to agree with Marina on this one. "Strange Days" was a very >underrated film and didn't perform well at the box office. I intended >catching it in the cinema but it had disappeared after two weeks. When I >finally caught up with it on video it was every bit as good as some reviews >had suggested. It also has the distinction of being directed by a woman, >Kathryn Bigelow, which is unusual for an action film. But it is a way above >average action film. For a start it has a plot. It also has some wonderful >actors: Ralph Fiennes, Angela Bassett and Juliet Lewis. It was produced by >James Cameron and may also have been written by him. It's well worth a >look. > >Adrian. > >"He's a man of few words but he keeps repeating them." > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:09:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: Re: P.C. Hodgell Thanks, Vonda. ---------- Vonda wrote: There's a web page for her -- http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m391/d-lena/PCHodgell.html I was going to look around for her email address for you, but the background color of the page made my over-40-eyes try to fall out, so I gave up I'm afraid. Vonda ---------- Mike Levy also gave me some information, and I located the faculty page at UW Osh-Kosh. There was an email address for her in the UW system, but I'm not sure that she uses it. At any rate, I checked the link that you gave me, followed it to a "Kencyr" page, checked Hypatia Press, and they seem to have all of her books, albeit at sizable rates. The least expensive versions are hardcover, signed editions: 1) God Stalk / Dark of the Moon $50 2) Seeker's Mask $35 3) Blood & Ivory $35 I'll be picking up copies, but I won't be getting quite as many extra copies for Christmas presents as I initially thought.... Anyway, again, thank you Vonda. And thank you, Mike. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:12:06 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > So, what about other triangles: heroine, men in distress, helpful > man. Which one should she take in the end? Perhaps none. I do that in my novel Primary Inversion. The heroine rescues not one love interest, but two, the first in the beginning of the book and the second toward the end. She ends up choosing the fellow who is twenty years younger, for complex reasons that have to do with the political intrigue of her government and his (all right, I admit it, he's a hunk too. But that really isn't the reason she chooses him. Really. Honest. ... Doesn't hurt, though. ). Primary Inversion is also hard science fiction, diamond hard (I've a doctorate in physics, which I use a lot in my writing). The combination of hard sf/role-reversed love story has been far better accepted than its detractors expected, and not only with female readers. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:23:44 -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: Antwort: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: <41256560.002E5179.00@LTNA00001997.o-tel-o.DE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I thought "Strange Days" was brilliant, and I was very disappointed that it didn't do better at the box office. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:22:47 -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: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A522@sdmail.dataworks.co m> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" That's an amazing reaction. Especially concerning the chase through the crowd at the end. I think it had nothing to do with Angela's color or the color of her rescuer. It had everything to do with one person trying to do what she thought was right and the police chief, just another person, really, affirming that she was doing the right thing. -Sean At 08:36 AM 12/1/97 -0800, you wrote: >Wow, I can hardly believe you're talking about the same Strange Days >that I saw. I saw it as a very early preview at my university. Do you >think the movie makers took our reviews seriously and re-edited the >godawful thing before opening it a couple of months later? I think they >must have because I can't believe you're talking about the same flick. > >I thought it was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. I was offended >at every turn by mindless, shallow dialogue and the heavy-handed >attempts to stir feminist ire. I hated the ploys: see, the bad guys are >really bad--they turn rape and torture into a fun, money-making scheme; >see, the good guys are really good 'cuz they're weepy, they get upset >when they see women treated badly, and they're nice to kids. The >bad/slutty girl no decent-female-movie-goer can relate to gets treated >(dismissed) like a bad/slutty girl; the good, maternal everywoman gets >rewarded by good guys and almost-bad guys alike. The ending is beyond >bad. When the big, white man came down from the skies like god to help >the poor, frightened, brown girl (can you say white, middle-class >guilt?) people groaned and laughed and walked out of the theater. Now >I'll grant you that the reaction of the students may be stronger than >that of the average theater-goer because my school has a larger than >average proportion of African-American, Latino, and Filipino students. >The biggest laugh of the night came at the end of the movie, after the >ridiculously cliched chase through the crowd (with gratuitous violence >perpetrated on innocent bystanders just to show how bad the bad guys are >in case you were really stupid and didn't get it earlier), when the good >folks get saved by the guy in the helicopter. A woman yelled, "Oh yeah, >here comes da Man. I wonder how big his gun is?" > >I stuck around to fill out the questionnaire so I could express the >depth of my disgust for this idiotic film. The embarrassing part is I >was the one who forced my friends to go see it because it had a female >director and starred a non-white woman. They only went because it was >free. Needless to say, I'm not allowed to pick films for these friends >anymore.... > >I think they must have fixed the film before general release. > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:25:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kristen L. Abbey" Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <34824DF3.4457DA9C@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > Bravo, Barbara! :) > > As a fellow 24-year-old, I must agree with every statement you made > there...perhaps it is a genrational thing we're worried about instead of > a snobbishness thing? > > - Geoffrey Tho an ancient 28, I too am wondering if there is a generational (or perhaps regional?) element to this SF/Sci-fi name game. I was raised in a fan household, I've been involved in the subculture... why didn't I know how people were using these terms? I hadn't noticed much beyond the disrespect the genre always received from mainstream popular and academic critics. On the other hand, I must have picked up on some of this distinction. When in doubt I've always done as above and called it "THE GENRE" or "a GENRE whatever," as if there could be only one genre, as if we hip & happening fans belonged to THE FANCLUB. I've noticed this little tactic in genre propaganda more than once. Does anybody remember who coined the term "speculative fiction"? I'm thinking it was Bradbury, but I could be wrong. _______________________________________________________________________________ Kristen L. Abbey kabbey@rci.rutgers.edu Ph.D. Student http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~kabbey Rutgers University Program in Comparative Literature Favorite Spice Girl: Ambiguous Spice _______________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:32:55 -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: How About that Alien Resurrection? (poss spoilers) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Good heavens. Did that movie have some of the most bizarre subtext you've ever seen, or what? I loved the 1-7 scene, and would love to know what other people thought of it. And what did anyone make of Ripley's various relationships with the critters? Are we now supposed to start feeling more compassionate towards them, a la Frankenstein or King Kong? What are we to make of the fact that of the two stongest female (humanoid) characters, one was a semi-alien clone and the other was a robot? Can't wait to hear other people's reactions! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 11:19:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Le Anne Fossmeyer Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I think they MUST have re-edited the film. What I saw was so painfully heavy-handed, there'd be no missing it. The message clobbered us over the head: even a brown girl can be so right (and so threatened) that even the big, white bureaucrat (a symbol of all of the white bureaucracies that ignore the plight of the disenfranchised) can be moved to doing the right thing. The scene I saw had Bad Guys about to do Bad Things when suddenly, in blindlingly bright, white spotlights, the helicopter swooped from the skies, masses people part like the Red Sea, and out steps the very clean cut, very white (once again, glowing brilliantly white from all the spotlights) man to save the helpless Good Guys. When they showed the man, they shot him from an angle well below the horizon so he appeared to be about seven or eight feet tall. I'm talking no subtlety whatsoever. And again, I may have been more sensitive to the color issue because I was one of only about a dozen whites in the audience, but I don't think so. And when I say everyone laughed, I mean everyone. So, because there are intelligent people out there who liked the film they saw in the theatre or on video, I think what I saw and was asked to review must have been a test market version they either canned or re-worked. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Johnston [SMTP:sean-johnston@UIOWA.EDU] > Sent: Monday, December 01, 1997 10:23 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie > > That's an amazing reaction. Especially concerning the chase through > the > crowd at the end. I think it had nothing to do with Angela's color or > the > color of her rescuer. It had everything to do with one person trying > to do > what she thought was right and the police chief, just another person, > really, affirming that she was doing the right thing. > > -Sean > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 19:35:46 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 and Brin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bonnie mentioned Tepper's _Gate_ compared to Brin's _Glory Season_: I agree with the idea that Tepper is showing a society in transition, not yet a utopia but with utopian aspirations which are based, basically, on genetic changes which (given the basis for the novel) will remove the propensity for violence from men. This is NOT one of my favorite works by Tepper because there are some things that she doesn't quite work out, but I do not believe the novel presents the city cultures uncritically. The fact that there is an annual ritual mourning performance based on (good grief I've forgotten the Greek play--_The Trojan Women_) I think, with some changes made (the changes in that play itself, wow), and only those few women in the know participating in it are a fascinating indication of the complexity of the novel. And there is genetic and ideological control of women too. Yet things could be worse, as the religious zealots exist to prove. Brin's novel is critically examining some of the assumptions of the seventies feminist utopias (Tepper's novel was published in the eighties), especially the issue of pastoralism, anti-technology, cloning, but his novel intersects in an interesting way with Tepper's on the issue of male violence, or propensity to violence: in his novel, events/characters argue that there is a need for that male trait. Both novels seem to assign it to genetics rather than socialization. That is the "essentialist" approach that causes some to critizie the novel or novels. But his novel is showing a society that is declining in some ways, at risk for some sort of possibly revoluntionary change in other ways (and the women characters in his novels are not all pacifistic by 'nature'). Both are fascinating examinations of culture, though I wouldn't consider either to be a utopian novel. (Now that I think of the novels out there, maybe whether or not you consider a work to be a utopia or a dystopia depends on where you'd be--after all, Plato's original _Utopia_ included legal slavery as a prerequisite for all the upper caste dudes to sit around Thinking Great Thoughts! Many of the American utopian experiments such as Brooks farm seemed to require a good deal more work by women related to the male intellectuals than by the male intellectuals themselves. Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote works questioning whether or not any society based on the nuclear family could ever achieve equality for all--she advocated communal living, and that same sort of communal living is achieved by the linguists women in Elgin's trilogy. In Brin's novel, if you're a clone daughter, you have a better shot at the education and family suport than if you're a variable. Class/caste issues are a part of that novel--some of the seventies feminist utopias don't pay much attention to race or class as systems of oppression in their focus on gender, but no single book can cover everything.) Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 19:50:35 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Portrayal of men: hating or not? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Postings that mentioned books that portrayed men hatefully did not give any specific examples, so I haven't wanted to reply: I'm used to hearing that some of my favorite feminist authors (Adrienne Rich to Suzette Haden Elgin "hate" men, and find that discussions aren't too productive--just had a similar one in my grad seminar where a couple of the students thought Elgin's _Native Tongue_ proved she was angry and hated men). (I don't know if the posts here had feminist works in mind, so I may be making an unfair assumption by connecting it with other discussions I've had). But with that background in mind, a friend and I saw _Alien: Resurrection_ last Wednesday. Said friend (female) is a HUGE fan; she made me promise to go to the movie with her (Boy does she owe me one because I'm such a completist I had to watch the three previous ones). We both liked the movie quite a lot, but as were were driving home I was musing on the movie (I do not consider the series to be feminist, although I know many feminist scholars find Ripley to be a feminist character at least). The men! It's produced/directed/written by men (or mostly men--at least this one was, and I'm fairly sure the earlier ones were). But how do the male characters come across in the movies? Not very well! There are a few "good ones": in this most recent one, the black crewmember and the crewmember in a wheelchair come across as compassionate and willing to help others even sacrificing themselves, as did the one surviving soldier and the one surviving kidnap victim. If that, there are more decent behaving men in this than in the earlier ones--I remember the ONE good marine who survived with Ripley and Newt in #2. MOST of the men, especially those in power, are presented negatively: the Company (pretty faceless, but the one Board meeting was mostly men, I seem to remember one or two women in suits), the Military (not much about government on Earth--it's the Company and the Military). Men in power, the white upper class men, are all presented in quite negative ways: deceitful, immoral or amoral, wanting to exploit this new species regardless of any safety concern or even of said species' rights. (The double X chromosome guys in the third movie were interesting--most of the prisoners AND the administrators, with the possible exception of the doctor and one prisoner--were rapists, or idiots.) Where does this fit in terms of being hateful toward men (i.e. presenting them as violent, rapists, stupid, etc.) that some claim feminist works regularly do? I'm not sure, if I was a male, that I'd appreciate this portrayal. (The reason I don't see the movies as feminist is because I don't see presenting One Exceptionally Brilliant or Outstanding Woman as a feminist strategy, though it certainly is a nice change and can be very useful for all of us to see.) A lot of the men in the ALIEN movies aren't too bright. I became quite frustrated with the plots of the first three movies because they were so much the same: Ripley realizes there is a problem, she warns the guys, they ignore her, aliens chomp everybody except Ripley, and there it ends except the next one opens up with the fact that no, the aliens aren't dead yet. This movie broke a bit with that plotline because of the cloning (which I was prepared to bre snarky about, but it was handled consistently within the movie even if you don't buy their premise). Having a female android, as played by Winona Rider, added an interesting ambiance to the plot, as did the overall results of the resurrection. I don't want to spoil the ending for people who haven't seen it yet. I think I liked this the best of the four movies.... although as usual I spent a fair amount of time with my eyes squinched shut not seeing the yucky parts. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:13:35 -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: How About that Alien Resurrection? (poss spoilers) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:32 AM 12/1/97 -0800, you wrote: >Good heavens. Did that movie have some of the most bizarre subtext you've >ever seen, or what? I loved the 1-7 scene, and would love to know what >other people thought of it. And what did anyone make of Ripley's various >relationships with the critters? Are we now supposed to start feeling >more compassionate towards them, a la Frankenstein or King Kong? What are >we to make of the fact that of the two stongest female (humanoid) >characters, one was a semi-alien clone and the other was a robot? Call was an android, not a robot. As to Ripley, remember that she was equally strong mentally in the previous Alien movies, just not as physically strong. Indeed, I think she's a little stronger now because she can see both sides, that of the aliens and that of the humans, and still chooses what on the surface seems to be the right thing to do. What do you mean by the 1-7 scene? "1-7"? Meaning the previous clone attempts? If that's what you're talking about, I found it simultaneously disgusting and heart-rending. I kept expecting another of the incarnations to come to life and was happy they didn't. The weakest part was Ron Perlman's character's line when he didn't understand what the big deal was: "Must be a chick thing." Funny, but juvenile, but funny, but juvenile... Are we to feel more compassionate? I'd say so and I don't see how we could not feel compassionate. These aliens were not acting out of malice and that's important to keep in mind. I didn't even see the freezing a person scene malicious but a way to get rid of a human, i.e., an obstacle. We might as well say that lionesses feel malice toward gazelles. I think not. I think lionesses see gazelles as food. Similar situation with the aliens. I'd also note that in most cases, people killed were used for food or as receptacles for new aliens, not just left on the floor like buffalo hunters of old would leave skinned buffalo carcasses on the plains. This said, I also think that the reaction of the humans was perfectly reasonable and I'd do the same things they did in trying to stay alive and get away. -Sean > >Can't wait to hear other people's reactions! > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:22:38 -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: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Funny how nobody (here or in mainstream criticism) ever mentions the long, excruciating rape scenes that are presented in first-person camera -eye point of view in this movie. I watch a lot of drama and action movies, and these were possibly the most relentless, brutal rape scenes on film I've ever seen (actually, I fast-forwarded through the second one because I couldn't stand it). Don't get me wrong, I understand the use of violence as part of a serious drama, but these scenes disturbed me. To me, they crossed the line into exploitation, especially since the point of view invites the viewer to put him/herself in the role of the rapist. This movie lost money, and I think its use of explicit violence was as much at fault as its unpleasant protagonist and difficult plotline. -- David Christenson - ldqt79a@prodigy.com "Reality doesn't need friends." - James Tiptree Jr. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:52:26 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: LDQT79A@prodigy.com ( DAVID CHRISTENSON)'s message of Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:22:38, -0500 * David Christenson > Funny how nobody (here or in mainstream criticism) ever mentions > the long, excruciating rape scenes that are presented in > first-person camera -eye point of view in this movie. I watch a > lot of drama and action movies, and these were possibly the most > relentless, brutal rape scenes on film I've ever seen I agree. They're really disgusting and very disturbing. > (actually, I fast-forwarded through the second one because I > couldn't stand it). Don't get me wrong, I understand the use of > violence as part of a serious drama, but these scenes disturbed > me. To me, they crossed the line into exploitation, especially > since the point of view invites the viewer to put him/herself in > the role of the rapist. Well, it is a cyberpunk movie (or would have been called that if it had been produced 5 years earlier), and there are some other very strong scenes in it too -- including but not limited to racial riots and police brutality. > This movie lost money, and I think its use of explicit violence > was as much at fault as its unpleasant protagonist and difficult > plotline. There are two main protagonists in the movie. First there is Ralph Fiennes' character who is almost falling apart but who finally manages to pull it together. I assume this is the one you are referring to as "its unpleasant protagonist"; I think it is far more complex than that, that Fiennes does a great job of acting, and that he manages to incite a measure of sympathy for the character. But the other protagonist, played by Angela Bassett, is marvelous. Indeed, I think this is the most fully realized and integrated female hero I have ever seen in a movie, and this makes the movie a favorite of mine. If you find her unpleasant or irrelevant, in my considered opinion you are not human. A substantial (not long) review of the movie may be found here: gopher://ftp.std.com:70/00/periodicals/Middlesex-News/movies/Strange%20Days Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:06:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: Re: Independent/feminist women in SF Peggy Hamilton wrote: ---------- I certainly agree that Paksenarrion is a strong and indepentant woman, but I would disagree that most of the strong characters are men. It's true that the Gods were largely male, but Alyana, Lady of Peace and healing was part of Paksenarrion's calling to be a paladin, so there was a good Goddess, even if she was predictalby the patron of peace. Another very strong immortal was the Lady of the Ladysforrest. She did not get into the action very much because she never left the Ladysforrest, but she was certainly a power to be recconned with. Among the mortal women there was Arianya, Marshal-General of Gird, who was certainly a match for Duke Phelan, and also a parental figure for Paks. Canna, one of her companions on the run from Dwarfwatch was a woman, more experienced and a teacher for Paks. One of the Duke's Captains was female. Even the minor female characters, like Kolya Ministiera and Estil Halveric were strong and independant. ---------- Quite correctly rebuked. Thank you. I'm not sure what exactly I was thinking about. I guess I had forgotten (somehow) about Arianya, and was thinking that all of the others, while strong, were overshadowed by males. But I think I was mostly just wrong. ---------- One aspect of the character that did bother me was Paksenarion's total lack of sexuality. Was this true of all paladins? Something to make them less entangled in personal affairs and better servants of their Gods? Or just Paks, because she was special, a kind of Galahad? ---------- That bothered me too, to some extent. I felt that it was just Paks, but I suppose it could be all paladins, with the reasons you give, and sort of just to keep them focused and unconfused by personal emotions. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:31:11 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: P.C. Hodgell In-Reply-To: <3482FFD2@msmailpc01.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Rhian, Did I give you this link? http://www.mxbf.com/search/ I only recently discovered it, so maybe not. It has bunches of on-line bookstores so you can compare prices. Vonda On Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:09:00 EST, Rhian Merris wrote: >... >At any rate, I checked the link that you gave me, followed it to a >"Kencyr" page, checked Hypatia Press, and they seem to have all of her >books, albeit at sizable rates. The least expensive versions are >hardcover, signed editions: >... 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: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:25:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Bolin Subject: Re: Strange Days movie Comments: To: Thomas Gramstad In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Strange Days impressed me in two ways. There was Angela Bassett, of course. But I was also impressed with the portrayal of Los Angeles at the turn of the Millenium. I grew up in North Long Beach, on the other side of the freeway from Compton, and out of all the science fiction movies taking place in Los Angeles, Strange Days felt the most like home. I really felt it when Ralph Fiennes' character was driving through the streets of L.A., listening to the radio. I first saw it in the campus theater, and once that scene showed up, I was telling my friends, "That's it. That's the Los Angeles I was telling you about. None of that flaky Beverly Hills/West L.A. routine. THAT'S the Los Angeles I grew up in." Just some random babblings... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Kate's gonna drag me kicking and screaming into B5 fandom yet. Her columns are always so literate, even when I don't have a clue as to what the show is about." --Randy Dannenfelser http://members.aol.com/frstlght/lurker.htm 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: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:40:59 -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: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > Funny how nobody (here or in mainstream criticism) ever mentions the > long, excruciating rape scenes that are presented in first-person > camera > -eye point of view in this movie. To be honest, the movie lost me in the first ten minutes. Nero was a yawner, and when I could believe him, the rest of the movie fell behind and I had no connection to the rape scenes at all. I hate to say all of this: Fiennes and Bassett two of my favorite actors and I'd gleefully go see the movie version of a plumbing manual if it starred one (or both) of those two...but the source material for this flick was just plain bad... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:11:10 -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: Strange Days movie Comments: To: Thomas Gramstad In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Thomas Gramstad wrote: > * David Christenson > > Funny how nobody (here or in mainstream criticism) ever mentions > > the long, excruciating rape scenes that are presented in > > first-person camera -eye point of view in this movie. I watch a > > lot of drama and action movies, and these were possibly the most > > relentless, brutal rape scenes on film I've ever seen > > I agree. They're really disgusting and very disturbing. > Of course they were disgusting and disturbing: so's rape. Would you have preferred tasteful, underplayed rape scenes? No, thank you. Those were horrific scenes, and they should have been. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:26:43 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: <199712012022.PAA83536@mime2.prodigy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Judging by the fact that people seem to either hate the movie or love it, it must have been really outstanding. You have to trully stir people's feelings to make them start using words like "idiotic". For one thing, it grasps your attention. Running across it while flipping the channels, I kept watching it till the end, even though it was three in the morning. Concerning the things that's been said by those who hated it. I agree that the final scene when a big white guy in a suit comes down from the helicopter and saves the world peace was a little cheesy. Maybe not even a little. Besides, the cops were definitely beating up the Angela Basset's character for too long before she got rescued. If a white woman got clubbed like that on the big screen, the movie would have a lot more problems, and not only in box office. On the other side, as long as the racial war has been averted, be it by a white guy or devil himself, it still gives us some hope. I wish there were more government suits dropping out of choppers in the middle of the events in LA several years ago. Unfortunately, real government officials are usually not that brave. Of course, this is just a Hollywood movie. However, I disagree that relations between the characters and their behavior were "unbelivable". First, there was nothing unbelivable about Basset character's "devotion" to the guy. In my opinion, this is what's called _friendship_. Maybe it does not happen too often, but it does exist. I'd like to have a friend like her myself. Besides, they show things like that between male friends all the time and no one finds it strange. About the guy's self-destruction, it's even more realistic. There are plenty of people falling for someone they try to rescue and who keeps telling them to get the Hell lost. Actually, in real life, it's a lot worse, and the guy in the movie was lucky to get away that easily. If you think "normal" people "with high self-esteem" don't do that, think Kelly Flinn and what happened to her. This part of the plot was anything but unbelievable. They don't usually show this in action movies, that's true, but that what makes this one so different. The rape scenes were not by far as exploitive as the ones in TV-made "crime" series they show at prime time on non-cable channels. At least the guys who watched it expressed some disgust. I've met a person who honestly did not understand how a man could be against rape. There was a news report on TV about rape and murder of a model, and the guy I'm talking about just could not get why the male reporter was so upset about it: "How can he say this is terrible, wouldn't he love to do it himself, if given a chance?" And this person was not some crook or something, but a loving husband and a father, and his wife was sitting there. I'm glad there is an action movie where tough men can be upset about a rape victim, even if she's not their sister or girlfriend as it usually happens. I'm afraid this message gets too long. Basically, what I am trying to say -- this movie is imperfect, it has lots of cliche's and stereotypes, but it's a big step forward comparing with the majority of traditional sf action. And finally, bad box office is not always an indication of worthlessness. I've heard that Tank Girl did not make a lot of money, either, but I think it's way more interesting than all the Batman flicks combined. Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:17:31 -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: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On the other side, as long as the >racial war has been averted, be it by a white guy or devil himself, it >still gives us some hope. Not sure I'd go to that extreme. I wish there were more government suits >dropping out of choppers in the middle of the events in LA several >years ago. Unfortunately, real government officials are usually not that >brave. Of course, this is just a Hollywood movie. > Don't underestimate them, though. I'm sure there are very brave people in the gov't. We probably just don't hear about them. And finally, bad box office is not always an indication of >worthlessness. A good example of that is "Screamers". Great show, but not much box office punch. I've heard that Tank Girl did not make a lot of money, >either, but I think it's way more interesting than all the Batman flicks >combined. That was a good show, too. Probably would've done lot better with some marketing. > >Marina > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > happens to be selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:15:57 -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: SF/Sci-Fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Benesch To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] SF/Sci-Fi >> At 06:29 PM 11/25/97 -0500, Barbara Benesch wrote: >> >Okay, seriously. I'm very glad you posted this, Lindy, because I'd been >> >becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the SF/Sci-Fi distinctions, just >> >like I've always been uncomfortable with the "hard"/"soft" science >> >distinctions. Personally, I think it's all a lot of hooey. >> >In a message dated 97-11-26 12:01:05 EST, Neil Rest wrote: >> Barbara, if you were talking about Tepper, LeGuin and, say, _Looking >> Backward_, and someone chimed in wanting to know which Terminator movie >you >> thought was better, you might well consider them off-topic, and perhaps >> even of less discriminating taste. Amplify that sort of thing by a couple >> of orders of magnitude. > >Neil, I can understand how when people were trying to pass "Attack of the >Rutabega That Ate Albequerque" as comparable to Tolkien in the science >fiction world, the distinction between "real" science fiction and "not-real" >science fiction was important. However, as a 24-year-old, I've never thought >of science fiction as *not* being a viable and legitimate form of literature. > Perhaps that's the difficulty here. > >Otherwise, I guess you'd have to classify me as one of the people "of less >discriminating taste" because as well as enjoying Tepper, et al., I enjoyed >_both_ Terminator movies, and further I enjoy other (what I presume you would >call) "less real" science fiction books, movies, and television shows. > >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com > As an 18 year old college student, I would have to agree. While Godzilla is certainly not science fiction, I think that Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Atwood, and yes, even those damn Ghost buster movies are. I think the whole sci-fi vs. SF debate is ridiculous. Why divide ourselves up? We are what we are, fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or otherwise. This science does not even need to be "hard science" i.e. Chemistry, Biology, etc. Sociology and Anthropology are legitimate sciences as well. Sorry to blather like this, but I needed to get this off my chest. Becca ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:39:36 -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: Strange Days movie 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: Monday, December 01, 1997 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Strange Days movie > On the other side, as long as the >>racial war has been averted, be it by a white guy or devil himself, it >>still gives us some hope. > >Not sure I'd go to that extreme. > >I wish there were more government suits >>dropping out of choppers in the middle of the events in LA several >>years ago. Unfortunately, real government officials are usually not that >>brave. Of course, this is just a Hollywood movie. >> >Don't underestimate them, though. I'm sure there are very brave people in >the gov't. We probably just don't hear about them. > > And finally, bad box office is not always an indication of >>worthlessness. > >A good example of that is "Screamers". Great show, but not much box office >punch. > > > I've heard that Tank Girl did not make a lot of money, >>either, but I think it's way more interesting than all the Batman flicks >>combined. > >That was a good show, too. Probably would've done lot better with some >marketing. > I caught it on TV late one night and loved it! (My name is Rebecca after all...) I thought the movie was great. Unfortuantly, I can't find a copy of it for sale any where... I need to. Oh well, >> >>Marina >> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society >> happens to be selling at the time." >> Naomi Wolf > > >Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:52:38 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Strange Days movie In-Reply-To: MARINA YERESHENKO 's message of Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:26:43 -0600 (CST) * Marina Yereshenko > I've met a person who honestly did not understand how a man could > be against rape. ... There was a news report on TV about rape > and murder of a model, and the guy I'm talking about just could > not get why the male reporter was so upset about it: "How can he > say this is terrible, wouldn't he love to do it himself, if given > a chance?" And this person was not some crook or something, but a > loving husband and a father, and his wife was sitting there. Lock him up, and fast. > However, I disagree that relations between the characters and > their behavior were "unbelivable". First, there was nothing > unbelivable about Basset character's "devotion" to the guy. In my > opinion, this is what's called _friendship_. Maybe it does not > happen too often, but it does exist. I'd like to have a friend > like her myself. Besides, they show things like that between male > friends all the time and no one finds it strange. It is friendship, but it is also more. She is in love with him, in particular the romantic and idealist part of him. More about that in a moment -- > About the guy's self-destruction, it's even more realistic. There > are plenty of people falling for someone they try to rescue and > who keeps telling them to get the Hell lost. Actually, in real > life, it's a lot worse, and the guy in the movie was lucky to get > away that easily. If you think "normal" people "with high > self-esteem" don't do that, think Kelly Flinn and what happened to > her. This part of the plot was anything but unbelievable. They > don't usually show this in action movies, that's true, but that > what makes this one so different. His trying to rescue someone who keeps telling him to get the Hell lost (Juliette Lewis' character) is a part of the problem, but his problems are even bigger than that, because of two additional factors. First, he is a junkie -- a memory junkie hooked to stored memories like the ones he is pushing, and the memories he is addicted to are the ones he recorded from better days, the time he was together with Lewis' character. This is a messy situation, to say the least. Second, he believes (mistakenly, for a long time of the movie), that all he has left is his solemn promise to be there for her, to take care of her -- he believes that this is the only intact part of his character, so that giving up this promise and stop trying to save Lewis' character would mean for him to give up his own character and thus destroy the last part of himself. And a central point in all this is that it is his romantic and idealist character traits that is driving him deeper into the mess. In fact, his idealism and romanticism are so strong that he doesn't care that it has set him on a course of self-destruction. And these are the redeeming traits that gain him sympathy from the viewer (and love from Bassett's character). So I think that describing his character as unpleasant is really very superficial. I'd also like to point out that most male movie characters belong to neat, simple, stereotypical and BORING categories (like "hero", "hero's teacher", "bad guy" etc. -- it's not that such categories in themselves need to be stereotypical, but that they so often are used in formulaic and superficial ways, especially when used to express gender), while Fiennes' character in Strange Days is outside such simplistic categorization -- and thus will appear interesting to some and alienating or unpleasant to others. > I agree that the final scene when a big white guy in a suit comes > down from the helicopter and saves the world peace was a little > cheesy. Maybe not even a little. I agree that his (the police chief) change of mind seemed a little unmotivated -- what caused him to change his mind when he didn't want to listen to them earlier? But there is nothing cheesy about the end of this movie. How can a dark, violent cyberpunkish movie have a nice Hollywood-type happy end, you ask? Well, it doesn't. Consider the following: * the racial problems and violence of that society aren't solved, only a particular crime seems to be brought to justice * the male protagonist doesn't save his former girlfriend from doom and live happily ever after with her (subversive) * the male protagonist is saved from doom by his new girlfriend (gender subversive) * the black woman gets the male, the white woman does not (subversive) * the feminine, helpless woman loses to the intelligent, heroic, not-gender stereotyped woman (very subversive) There is nothing cheesy or typical Hollywood about the end of this movie. On the contrary, the end subverts many of the common messages from Hollywood. And it does so efficiently BECAUSE it is a happy end. The alternative to Hollywood cliche happy ends is not doom and destruction, but realistic and non-stereotypical happy ends. > And finally, bad box office is not always an indication of > worthlessness. Perhaps this movie is too subtle in some ways (like character complexities), and too direct and concrete in other ways (rape, racism) for the average Joe America. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:46:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Star Watching (off-topic, but cool) Just heard about this on the news: Apparently from now until Monday, if you go outside and look at the sky just after sunset, you can see eight of the planets all in a row. It seems that all the other eight planets are aligned, and so even in brightly-lit cities and anywhere in the world, you can go out and see all the other planets with the naked eye. Happy Star Hunting!! Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:50:33 -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: Alien Resurrection? (looong, spoilers) Okay, hope everybody is comfortable, because this is liable to take a while. :) SPOILERS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:32 AM 12/1/97 -0800, Susan Palwick wrote: > >Good heavens. Did that movie have some of the most bizarre subtext you've > >ever seen, or what? Absolutely. Being the media junkie that I am, I had some pretty good clues to it ahead of time, but I still want to go see it again already, because I feel positive that there was more subtext in there that I've missed. > >I loved the 1-7 scene, and would love to know what > >other people thought of it. And what did anyone make of Ripley's various > >relationships with the critters? Are we now supposed to start feeling > >more compassionate towards them, a la Frankenstein or King Kong? What are > >we to make of the fact that of the two stongest female (humanoid) > >characters, one was a semi-alien clone and the other was a robot? In a message dated 97-12-01 15:17:18 EST, Sean Johnson wrote: > Call was an android, not a robot. As to Ripley, remember that she was > equally strong mentally in the previous Alien movies, just not as > physically strong. Indeed, I think she's a little stronger now because she > can see both sides, that of the aliens and that of the humans, and still > chooses what on the surface seems to be the right thing to do. Do you mean stronger now mentally, or physically? She's definitely stronger physically now, as part of what she gained from the crossing with the alien during cloning. And I'm sure Johner (Ron Perlman's character) would agree with how strong she is now physically. ;) However, as far as strong mentally, she seems to be stronger in some ways, and more vulnerable in others. (And incidentally, IMO Sigourney Weaver did an absolutely tremendous job in this portrayal of Ripley.) She does seem stronger mentally because the aliens do not seem so _alien_ to the clone as they did to the original Ripley. Even in the third movie, I got the feeling that Ripley was constantly surpressing a desire to run screaming away from the aliens out of sheer revulsion (in her position, I know I would!). The clone, however, felt a strange kinship to them, and so had no problem in facing them. However, she also seemed to have a certain vulnerability in that no matter which "side" she chose, she would betray her kin. Also, she seemed to exhibit some signs of what I believe was Attachment Disorder (it often happens to infants who are severely neglected - they do not form any sort of trust in the world or anyone in it, and have an extremely difficult time acting in socially accepted ways). Perhaps it was just something that I was looking for, and thus found, but I think that would be at least _part_ of why she stabbed her hand with the knife Call had, as well as why when Call first found the clone, she (the clone) was being too close to Call for what society would accept. (Or was that supposed to be some kind of lesbian subtext?!?!? I can't decide.) I think a good part of why I started to think that Ripley's clone was dealing with Attachment Disorder was because she had this "untamed" quality to her that reminded me of what people (I'm sorry, I don't know which people, whether it was in fiction or non-fiction or what) have said about supposedly tamed wolves or part-wolf dogs. For instance, when she attacked Dr. Wren very early in the movie: she had no reason to, except that she felt like it and he'd let his guard down. > What do you mean by the 1-7 scene? "1-7"? The room clones 1-7 were held in was labeled "1-7". > Meaning the previous clone > attempts? If that's what you're talking about, I found it simultaneously > disgusting and heart-rending. I kept expecting another of the incarnations > to come to life and was happy they didn't. The weakest part was Ron > Perlman's character's line when he didn't understand what the big deal was: > "Must be a chick thing." Funny, but juvenile, but funny, but juvenile... I think we were supposed to find it simultaneously disgusting and heart-rending. I think we were supposed to become disgusted with certain humans' ability to abuse and hurt other creatures, as well as to feel an enormous amount of pity and compassion for both the "successful" clone and the other seven clones. I, for one, wouldn't have blamed "8" for switching sides then and there and deciding to just wipe out the stinking humans. At least when the aliens hurt and abuse and kill, they tend to do so quickly (even those humans who are impregnated with an alien and die during it's "birth" die more quickly than "7"), and not to their own species. Also, an interesting note: Apparently when the special effects people got all the photos and casts, etc from Sigourney Weaver in order to make clones 1-7, they asked for her imput on how to make the other clones look, and she told them to surprise her. So the first time Sigourney Weaver ever saw clones 1-7 was when they filmed the scene the first time through (I don't know if they needed multiple takes or not). Just thought that was kind of interesting. > Are we to feel more compassionate? I'd say so and I don't see how we > could not feel compassionate. These aliens were not acting out of malice > and that's important to keep in mind. I didn't even see the freezing a > person scene malicious but a way to get rid of a human, i.e., an obstacle. I would disagree - the freezing a person scene probably was malicious, actually. I see it as a retaliation for the times the alien itself was frozen by the doctor. Not that I blame it, but I do see it as a relatiation, and not just a way to remove an obstacle. However, I do agree that we're supposed to have certainly more compassion for the aliens than we've had in the past. > -Sean And in a message dated 97-12-01 14:54:51 EST, Robin Reid wrote: > Postings that mentioned books that portrayed men hatefully did not give any > specific examples, so I haven't wanted to reply: -sorry, Robin > But with that background in mind, a friend and I saw _Alien: Resurrection_ > last Wednesday. Said friend (female) is a HUGE fan; she made me promise to > go to the movie with her (Boy does she owe me one because I'm such a > completist I had to watch the three previous ones). We both liked the movie > quite a lot, but as were were driving home I was musing on the movie (I do > not consider the series to be feminist, although I know many feminist > scholars find Ripley to be a feminist character at least). The men! I would agree that the series is not actually feminist, although it comes much closer than most other action movies I've seen. However, I would have to say that Ripley is a feminist character, in that from the start she isn't depicted as anything out of the ordinary as a person. She's just a grunt, doing her job, waiting for her next paycheck. She doesn't start as any sort of a "superhero type" or anything like that, but as just another working woman in the future. > It's produced/directed/written by men (or mostly men--at least this one was, > and I'm fairly sure the earlier ones were). All four movies have been directed by men, and I know that this was the first time Sigourney Weaver had co-producer credits on an Alien movie. Also, I know that Alien Resurrection was written by the man who wrote _Buffy_The_Vampire_Slayer_, and a few other movies. And I know Alien3 was written by a man. Other than that, I don't know. > But how do the male characters > come across in the movies? Not very well! There are a few "good ones": in > this most recent one, the black crewmember and the crewmember in a > wheelchair come across as compassionate and willing to help others even > sacrificing themselves, as did the one surviving soldier and the one > surviving kidnap victim. I thought most of the crewmembers from the Betty were pretty "good" characters. Granted, some were not terribly *enlightened* men, but at least they were all willing to back each other up and worked well as a team. I certainly didn't get the feeling that any of them were out to do each other actual harm. I'll grant Johner took a strange pride in playing the "asshole", but he seemed to have the attitude of a big brother - "I can be mean to my crew, but anybody else is gonna have to get through me first." > If that, there are more decent behaving men in this than in the earlier > ones--I remember the ONE good marine who survived with Ripley and Newt in > #2. There was more than just "one" good marine in #2, he was just the only one who survived. The others, aside from Gorman (the incompetent lieutenant), were good people, but marines, and thus brash and crass and full of bravado (a trait I can forgive in people who routinely stare death in the face for a paycheck). In Aliens, many of the marines died in the first clash with the aliens, and the remaining ones died during the attempt to leave the planet's surface. Hudson (Bill Paxton's character) dies toward the end, but takes out a number of aliens in the process, and even Gorman redeems himself some, by choosing to stay behind with Vasquez when she is mortally wounded in order to help the rest of the group escape. > MOST of the men, especially those in power, are presented negatively: I agree, this is very true. > Where does this fit in terms of being hateful toward men (i.e. presenting > them as violent, rapists, stupid, etc.) that some claim feminist works > regularly do? I'm not sure, if I was a male, that I'd appreciate this > portrayal. (The reason I don't see the movies as feminist is because I > don't see presenting One Exceptionally Brilliant or Outstanding Woman as a > feminist strategy, though it certainly is a nice change and can be very > useful for all of us to see.) As I've kind of stated before, I didn't see Ripley as being "One Exceptionally Brilliant or Outstanding Woman", but rather as just another grunt (from the first movie) who managed to luck out somehow and survive. After the first movie, she had a bit of an advantage due to her previous experience with the aliens, but I still didn't think of her as being all that different than other people except in the experiences she had had. > A lot of the men in the ALIEN movies aren't too bright. I became quite > frustrated with the plots of the first three movies because they were so > much the same: Ripley realizes there is a problem, she warns the guys, they > ignore her, aliens chomp everybody except Ripley, and there it ends except > the next one opens up with the fact that no, the aliens aren't dead yet. I agree that got annoying. I almost want to call it some kind of "modern feminist parable" that tells men that they really should listen to women more often, because the men who believed Ripley and spent their time preparing rather than sniggering at her behind their hands tended to last longer than their counterparts. ;) > This movie broke a bit with that plotline because of the cloning (which I > was prepared to be snarky about, but it was handled consistently within the > movie even if you don't buy their premise). Having a female android, as > played by Winona Rider, added an interesting ambiance to the plot, as did > the overall results of the resurrection. I don't want to spoil the ending > for people who haven't seen it yet. I think I liked this the best of the > four movies.... although as usual I spent a fair amount of time with my eyes > squinched shut not seeing the yucky parts. > > Robin I also liked the inclusion of Annalee Call (the android played by Winona Ryder), and wish they'd had the time to explore what made her character tick a little more (this is also part of why I want to go see it again already). I think I agree with you Robin, that this is my favorite of the four movies, and a lot of it had to do with the characterization of the clone and the exploration of her ties with both the humans and the aliens. Also, back to the subtext thing - (AND THIS IS A BIG SPOILER, SO SKIP IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW) - I was really disturbed by the Newborn (I guess that's what they're officially calling that human-alien hybrid at the end) killing it's mother. I still can't decide what exactly to make of that, but I don't much like it either way. Okay, my fingers really hurt now, so I'm going to stop. :) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:40:39 -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: Alien Resurrection? (looong, spoilers) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barbara Benesch wrote: > All four movies have been directed by men, and I know that this was > the first > time Sigourney Weaver had co-producer credits on an Alien movie. > Also, I > know that Alien Resurrection was written by the man who wrote > _Buffy_The_Vampire_Slayer_, and a few other movies. And I know Alien3 > was > written by a man. Other than that, I don't know. This one was written by Buffy's creator himself: Joss Whedon. What other credits does he have to his name? _Speed_ and _Toy Story_. The man is slightly eclectic in his tastes...oh, and btw: he's already been signed for the fifth _Alien_ film (no word on a director, but I vote for Tim Burton)... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:03:16 -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: Strange Days movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MARINA YERESHENKO wrote: > Judging by the fact that people seem to either hate the movie or love > it, > it must have been really outstanding. You have to trully stir people's > > feelings to make them start using words like "idiotic". I don't think I used "idiotic"...and I never said I hated the movie. Hate is too strong an emotion to be focused on a strip of film... > First, there was nothing unbelivable about > Basset character's "devotion" to the guy. In my opinion, this is > what's > called _friendship_. Maybe it does not happen too often, but it does > exist. I'd like to have a friend like her myself. Besides, they show > things like that between male friends all the time and no one finds it > > strange. I'm thinking more along the lines of co-dependency. Those two did not have what I would like to think of as a healthy friendship, and the forced romance was even worse (why can't Lenny just get his life together without a mother figure in Bassett or a whore figure in Lewis?). > About the guy's self-destruction, it's even more realistic. No, I don't think so. If it were realistic, the movie would be taking place after Lenny's funeral...no one like that would last as long as he did - especially after leaving the police force (both the cops and the criminals would want him dead). > I'm glad there is an action movie > where tough men can be upset about a rape victim, even if she's not > their > sister or girlfriend as it usually happens. Agreed. The movie had vast potential there...too bad they couldn't stay focused (but that's a consistent James Cameron problem through all his scripts). > And finally, bad box office is not always an indication of > worthlessness. That's true, and no one's arguing that. Some of us are simply saying that we would have liked to have seen a good film. Instead (IMHO) we got a mildly silly morality play of a movie that felt like it belonged more in Bill Bennett's _The Book of Virtues_ than in SF. > I've heard that Tank Girl did not make a lot of money, > either, but I think it's way more interesting than all the Batman > flicks > combined. Actually, please don't combine Burton's films with Schumacher's Adam West retreads...and _Tank Girl_ was seriously lacking in its translation from comic to film (but that's another story). - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:02:51 -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: Alien Resurrection? (looong, spoilers) In-Reply-To: <971202025032_-1960368927@mrin46.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For instance, when she attacked Dr. Wren very early in the >movie: she had no reason to, except that she felt like it and he'd let his >guard down. She had a great reason: he was wayyy up in her face. What does an animal do, and what do most people probably feel like doing when a person they don't know does something like that? At >least when the aliens hurt and abuse and kill, they tend to do so quickly >(even those humans who are impregnated with an alien and die during it's >"birth" die more quickly than "7"), and not to their own species. Welll, there was the cage scene w/ the three aliens, two of whom killed the third, but for a good reason: to get outta the cage. > >> Are we to feel more compassionate? I'd say so and I don't see how we >> could not feel compassionate. These aliens were not acting out of malice >> and that's important to keep in mind. I didn't even see the freezing a >> person scene malicious but a way to get rid of a human, i.e., an obstacle. > >I would disagree - the freezing a person scene probably was malicious, >actually. I see it as a retaliation for the times the alien itself was >frozen by the doctor. Not that I blame it, but I do see it as a relatiation, >and not just a way to remove an obstacle. However, I do agree that we're >supposed to have certainly more compassion for the aliens than we've had in >the past. > Hm. Might have a point there, but I still don't see the aliens as malicious beings. Harsh by our standards, but not cruel. Heck, even the scene where the new alien bites a hunk outta the doc's head wasn't cruel. It was merely reacting to something it may have seen as a threat the most natural way it could, and perhaps the only way it could. By the by, who out there thinks the baby alien, the one with paler skin and the quivering nose, was scarier than ten regular aliens combined with the queen alien tossed in? I think is was wayyyy scarier because it's a lot closer to human, so there's not such convenient sort of visual dissociation. For a perfect example of what I'm talking about, consider how much scarier Hannibal Lecter was than Freddy Kreuger, since Hannibal looked so much more...normal...so non-threatening at times. Freddy looked threatening all the time, so we got used to it and weren't so disarmed when he did something spooky. Lecter, on the other hand, I didn't really get so used to as a threat, which made him more of a threat, since he could disarm so much more easily. Of course, this analyzing of the Newborn is an attempt to not be so scared of it when, not if, I see the show again. That's not all that it is, but it's a good portion. >- I was really disturbed by the Newborn (I guess that's what they're >officially calling that human-alien hybrid at the end) killing it's mother. > I still can't decide what exactly to make of that, but I don't much like it >either way. See above paragraph. -Sean Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 04:05:46 -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: SF/Sci-Fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, I'd venture to say that Godzilla is SF...but you have to go through how many hours of film to find those nuggets? ;) - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:49:20 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 Watching (off-topic, but cool) In-Reply-To: <971202024610_-522806095@mrin84.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This would be quite a trick since Neptune and Pluto can't be seen with the naked eye under any conditions, and Uranus only faintly under extraordinary circumstances. On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 02:46:11 -0500, Barbara Benesch wrote: >Just heard about this on the news: Apparently from now until Monday, if you >go outside and look at the sky just after sunset, you can see eight of the >planets all in a row. It seems that all the other eight planets are aligned, >and so even in brightly-lit cities and anywhere in the world, you can go out >and see all the other planets with the naked eye. > >Happy Star Hunting!! > >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com 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: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 06:17:17 -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: Alien Resurrection? (spoilers) In a message dated 97-12-02 04:06:15 EST, Sean Johnston wrote: > >Barbara Benesch wrote: > >For instance, when she attacked Dr. Wren very early in the > >movie: she had no reason to, except that she felt like it and he'd let his > >guard down. > She had a great reason: he was wayyy up in her face. What does an animal > do, and what do most people probably feel like doing when a person they > don't know does something like that? I was operating on the assumption that she'd dealt with him before, (which now that I think about it may very well not have been the case) and since she seemed to retain some of her memories, she would have remembered what visits to the doctor are all about. But that's not really the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make, which you've actually helped me with, is that if you or I were dealing with a doctor who was severely invading our personal space *and* talking about us like we weren't in the room, we would speak up, we would not physically attack him. However, with people dealing with Attachment Syndrome, they often revert to more "animalistic" impulses, because they lack the socialization to deal with the problem in a more "socially acceptable" way. So I thought that the movie was very consistent in dealing with Ripley looking and processing mentally like an adult, but not having the life experiences to deal with the world socially. > At > >least when the aliens hurt and abuse and kill, they tend to do so quickly > >(even those humans who are impregnated with an alien and die during it's > >"birth" die more quickly than "7"), and not to their own species. > > Welll, there was the cage scene w/ the three aliens, two of whom killed the > third, but for a good reason: to get outta the cage. I also forgot about that. I'd meant to mention that I thought that was one of the scarier things I'd seen (until the "Newborn", anyway), because that scene made it so evident that the aliens weren't just unreasoning beings like we'd been allowed to hope previously. I don't remember #3 very well, but I do know that at the end of #2, we suspected that the aliens were what we would consider sentient, but we weren't sure. That scene left no doubt that the aliens are definitely _reasoning_ creatures. > >> Are we to feel more compassionate? I'd say so and I don't see how we > >> could not feel compassionate. These aliens were not acting out of > malice > >> and that's important to keep in mind. I didn't even see the freezing a > >> person scene malicious but a way to get rid of a human, i.e., an > obstacle. > > > >I would disagree - the freezing a person scene probably was malicious, > >actually. I see it as a retaliation for the times the alien itself was > >frozen by the doctor. Not that I blame it, but I do see it as a > relatiation, > >and not just a way to remove an obstacle. However, I do agree that we're > >supposed to have certainly more compassion for the aliens than we've had in > >the past. > > > Hm. Might have a point there, but I still don't see the aliens as > malicious beings. Harsh by our standards, but not cruel. Heck, even the > scene where the new alien bites a hunk outta the doc's head wasn't cruel. > It was merely reacting to something it may have seen as a threat the most > natural way it could, and perhaps the only way it could. I don't think of them as necessarily malicious, either, but I think that making the assumption that their actions are based solely on instinct would be a mistake. > By the by, who out there thinks the baby alien, the one with paler skin and > the quivering nose, was scarier than ten regular aliens combined with the > queen alien tossed in? I think is was wayyyy scarier because it's a lot > closer to human, so there's not such convenient sort of visual > dissociation. For a perfect example of what I'm talking about, consider > how much scarier Hannibal Lecter was than Freddy Kreuger, since Hannibal > looked so much more...normal...so non-threatening at times. Freddy looked > threatening all the time, so we got used to it and weren't so disarmed when > he did something spooky. Lecter, on the other hand, I didn't really get so > used to as a threat, which made him more of a threat, since he could disarm > so much more easily. Definitely the Newborn was the scariest thing I've seen since... the two aliens tore apart the third in order to escape. Whoooeeee! It was also really freaky that it made a very human-infant wailing kind of sound as well. It gave me some serious heebie-jeebies. And the look it gave Call when she was fighting it and was trying to smush its head under a door (I think that's how it went, that final battle is kind of a blur to me) was especially creepy. It looked like it was about to cry, and even though *I* knew better, part of me wanted to go "Oh, sweetie, I'm sorry," and comfort it.... well, until it ate me. :) Yes, definitely some severe whim-whams. > Of course, this analyzing of the Newborn is an attempt to not be so scared > of it when, not if, I see the show again. That's not all that it is, but > it's a good portion. Also, it was really tough to get a bead on it. Not physically, but trying to guess its motives was impossible (at least to me). It seemed to want Ripley to cuddle it and play mama, but it also seemed to want to turn her into a tasty snack. I think that was part of the Creep Factor on the Newborn. And yes, Sean analyzes, Barb uses slang. All part of an attempt not to be so scared next time I see it. :) > >- I was really disturbed by the Newborn (I guess that's what they're > >officially calling that human-alien hybrid at the end) killing it's mother. > > I still can't decide what exactly to make of that, but I don't much like > it > >either way. > > See above paragraph. > > -Sean > > Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown > > Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:02:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: _Strange Days_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's funny. When I saw _Strange Days_ in the theater, I felt duly impressed by the dystopian vision of LA at the turn of the Millennium. It made me think of Mike Davis's fine book, _City of Quartz_ which is a kind of cultural history of LA. (Those from L. A. like Kate might find it interesting reading). But when I rented from the Detroit Public Library, I couldn't seem to get into it. Maybe it was the experience of sitting in a theater and having that fantastic music blaring your ears while watching the events on the screen that I was missing. I think the soundtrack (especially since I later bought) has had a more powerful effect on me than the movie itself. One interesting note is that James Cameron said at some point that he listened to all of the bands on the soundtrack while writing the screenplay. Anybody own the soundtrack who can attest to the same thoughts feelings? 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, 2 Dec 1997 08:32:17 -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 Watching (off-topic, but cool) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please confirm? misha PS I have nasty blister(s) from my new boots =( I can't find a bandaid, but I should be okay by lunch when I have to walk again. I love you, have fun, stuff misha >---------- >From: Barbara Benesch[SMTP:BJBenesch@AOL.COM] >Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:46 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: [*FSFFU*] Star Watching (off-topic, but cool) > >Just heard about this on the news: Apparently from now until Monday, if you >go outside and look at the sky just after sunset, you can see eight of the >planets all in a row. It seems that all the other eight planets are aligned, >and so even in brightly-lit cities and anywhere in the world, you can go out >and see all the other planets with the naked eye. > >Happy Star Hunting!! > >Barbara Benesch >BJBenesch@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:25:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: CMUNSON Subject: Strange Days Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey Laura, why am I getting a digest of this list. I didn't touch anything! I thought Strange Days was one of the worst movies of 1996. I usually like most movies I see and given that 1996 had better movies than 1997 so far, that's saying alot. I thought the plot was poorly written, the characters unconvincing, and so on. Angela Basset's character should have kicked Ralph Fiennes character in the teeth at the end of the movie. His character was totally unsympathetic. What bothered me most was the gratuitous rape/snuff scene in the middle of the movie. I have a high tolerance for weird deviant stuff, but this scene was totally unneeded. I almost walked out of the theater in protest. That scene had nothing to do with art or free speech or the damn plot--it was in there for the ratings and money. Fortunately, Strange Days did poorly at the box office and will be forgotten in a few years. Strange Days is simply a bad movie. Chuck0 Bab5 Zone http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1672/bab5.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:31:03 -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: Star Watching (off-topic, but cool) 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: > This would be quite a trick since Neptune and > Pluto can't be seen with the naked eye under any > conditions, and Uranus only faintly under > extraordinary circumstances. Well, you know Vonda, some of the more apocalyptic types seem to think we're in for a big huge cosmic cataclysm either next year or 1999 because all of the planets are going to be lined up (don't ask me if it's true...my astronomy knowledge ends with a "C" in freshman college astrophysics...though I did see Hale-Bopp). So, perhaps the planets will reveal themselves to us, and the Earth will be destroyed in a rain of fire and brimstone...or, perhaps, Ming the Merciless is going to attempt to crash Mongo into Earth... - Geoffrey -- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:51:07 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: Nichelle and Gene; Was Re: Starship Troopers Hi everyone! I just wanted to set the record straight. I listened to another interview with Nichelle Nicolls, and I had an incorrect version of the story between Gene and Nichelle before. Gene introduced Majel and Nichelle when he was dating them both. He took Nichelle to Majel's house for dinner, without telling either of them who the other was until after the fact. To Gene's surprise, Nichelle and Majel had met before. When Nichelle spoke with Gene on the way home, she was shocked and angry. Gene explained, "It was the only way I could tell the two women I loved that I was in love with two women." Nichelle broke up with Gene shortly thereafter. Also, this occurred a year or so before the filming of Star Trek, and they did part friends. Nichelle was not unhappy with the Uhura character (which Nichelle named), but with the way the character was being treated by the network; the racism was rampant, and Nichelle could only take so much! Apparently, Gene fought tooth and nail to make advances for the Uhura character. Maybe that is why Nichelle was able to forgive Gene for his sexist nature. I apologize for my earlier inaccuracies. I would like to see the original interview I had seen many years ago just to see how bad my memory really is. On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:54:25 EST Penelope Gibbs said: > > 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: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:42:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anny Middon Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In a message dated 97-12-01 18:38:26 EST, rstoler@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu writes: > As an 18 year old college student, I would have to agree. While Godzilla is > certainly not science fiction, I think that Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Atwood, and > yes, even those damn Ghost buster movies are. I think the whole sci-fi vs. > SF debate is ridiculous. Why divide ourselves up? We are what we are, > fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or > otherwise. This science does not even need to be "hard science" i.e. > Chemistry, Biology, etc. Sociology and Anthropology are legitimate sciences > as well. Sorry to blather like this, but I needed to get this off my chest. I mostly agree with Becca here: It does seem counterproductive to divide ourselves. My one quibble is that I consider Godzilla to be science fiction. Perhaps not very good science fiction, but science fiction nonetheless. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but my VideoHound guide reminds me that Godzilla was awakened by atomic testing. In fact, atomic testing/experimentation was a popular theme in science fiction of the 1950's, when there were a number of films in which such work turned benign denizens of the natural world into monsters that threatened people. The symbolism is obvious, and I can well see how horrific these movies were to people still trying to comprehend the bombing of Hiroshima. Myself, I have fond memories of a flick called Beginning of the End in which giant grasshoppers attacked Chicago. At one point it seemed the special effects consisted of letting grasshoppers crawl all over a picture of the Tribune Tower. And now a question. I agree with Becca's statement that "We are what we are, fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or otherwise." But how do Alternate History stories fit this definition? They have long been considered science fiction. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:37:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: list-mistress - digests In-Reply-To: <000D45AB.1205@aaas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII you know, we should have said something (did we? i almost thought we did but maybe not). when people's emails have taken to bouncing and providing a lot of error messages chris and i have been setting their accounts to digest to avoid flooding our inboxes. it's easy enough to unset: send an email to: listserv@uic.edu and in the body of the message say: set feministsf nodigest sorry for inconvenience. (btw, chuck, chris must have gotten you, because i knew that your server wouldn't have gone done) it's kind of a pain, i know, but given that we have so many subscribers and such a large volume it's helpful for us, and it prevents you from missing any messages. Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:39:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Feminist Bookstore Network Catalog Online (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." -- Emma Goldman FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:22:12 -0800 From: Danielle Bauter To: LEZBRIAN@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Feminist Bookstore Network Catalog Online FEMINIST BOOKSTORE NETWORK CATALOG AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET The Feminist Bookstore Network Catalog and Directory is an important new resource for educators and academics of all genres. 110 feminist bookstores from the United States and Canada, the members of the Feminist Bookstore Network, have joined forces to produce this catalog that celebrates the rich diversity of women^Òs lives and visions. The books come from a wide variety of feminist, independent, university, and corporate presses. The Catalog also includes a directory of the feminist bookstores, along with street and email addresses, phone and fax numbers, and links to Network stores with websites. All of this information is in one location: http://www.FemBookNet.com ^× a place to learn about exciting new titles, where to order them, and find new bookstores. Feminist bookstores keep women^Òs literature on the national agenda and, unlike our imitators, feminist bookstores celebrate women^Òs lives and literature every day ^× not just when it^Òs trendy or profitable to do so. Feminist bookstores are also a solid, essential, dependable part of feminist activism and women^Òs communities, working to create a diverse literature that reflects all of the people in this culture. They provide a comfortable, safe place for women to share information and skills, ask questions too sensitive to ask elsewhere, and find support. This is not the mission of Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com; it does make a difference where you buy your books! Feminist bookstores are able to continue to do this important work because women (and men) go the extra mile to support us. What can you do? Check out our Web presence and order your books from feminist bookstores. With your active support, feminist bookstores and feminist publishers will keep focusing attention on women^Òs voices that won^Òt get mainstream attention ^× until we^Òve given their work a place to stand. Find the Feminist Bookstore Network Catalog on the Internet at www.FemBookNet.com, or pick up a free copy of the print version at your local feminist bookstore, or send $2 to the Feminist Bookstore Network, PO Box 882554, San Francisco, CA, 94188. Please pass this information along as a resource to your colleagues and students. Feminist Bookstore News PO Box 882554 San Francisco, CA 94188 phone: 415-642-9993 fax: 415-642-9995 danielle@fembknews.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 19:16:02 -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: SF/Sci-Fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I mostly agree with Becca here: It does seem counterproductive to divide >ourselves. My one quibble is that I consider Godzilla to be science fiction. > Perhaps not very good science fiction, but science fiction nonetheless. > It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but my VideoHound guide >reminds me that Godzilla was awakened by atomic testing. > >In fact, atomic testing/experimentation was a popular theme in science >fiction of the 1950's, when there were a number of films in which such work >turned benign denizens of the natural world into monsters that threatened >people. The symbolism is obvious, and I can well see how horrific these >movies were to people still trying to comprehend the bombing of Hiroshima. > >Myself, I have fond memories of a flick called Beginning of the End in which >giant grasshoppers attacked Chicago. At one point it seemed the special >effects consisted of letting grasshoppers crawl all over a picture of the >Tribune Tower. > >And now a question. I agree with Becca's statement that "We are what we are, >fantasy with some sort of basis in science, be it current, futuristic, or >otherwise." But how do Alternate History stories fit this definition? They >have long been considered science fiction. > >Anny >AnnyMiddon@aol.com > I think that alternate Histories are also sci-fi/SF they fit in too. Perhaps my definition was limited. If so, my apologies Becca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:47:46 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Christine Boltz Subject: Re: Star Watching (off-topic, but cool) The planets were also lined up in 1982--I remember discussing with my sixth grade classmates how something apocalyptic was supposed to happen at the exact minute when the planets were aligned. I am not an astronomer either, but it seems hard to believe that they would be lined up again so soon. Maybe that is just a millenium-end-apocalypse rumor. I would think there would be some of those . . . -----Original Message----- From: Geoffrey D. Sperl To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Star Watching (off-topic, but cool) >Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > >> This would be quite a trick since Neptune and >> Pluto can't be seen with the naked eye under any >> conditions, and Uranus only faintly under >> extraordinary circumstances. > >Well, you know Vonda, some of the more apocalyptic types seem to think >we're in for a big huge cosmic cataclysm either next year or 1999 >because all of the planets are going to be lined up (don't ask me if >it's true...my astronomy knowledge ends with a "C" in freshman college >astrophysics...though I did see Hale-Bopp). So, perhaps the planets >will reveal themselves to us, and the Earth will be destroyed in a rain >of fire and brimstone...or, perhaps, Ming the Merciless is going to >attempt to crash Mongo into Earth... > >- Geoffrey >-- > >Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect > >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:50:55 -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 Watching (off-topic, but cool) In a message dated 97-12-03 01:40:19 EST, Christine Boltz wrote: > The planets were also lined up in 1982--I remember discussing with my sixth > grade classmates how something apocalyptic was supposed to happen at the > exact minute when the planets were aligned. I am not an astronomer either, > but it seems hard to believe that they would be lined up again so soon. > Maybe that is just a millenium-end-apocalypse rumor. I would think there > would be some of those . . . > And Geoffrey Sperl wrote: > > >Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > > >> This would be quite a trick since Neptune and > >> Pluto can't be seen with the naked eye under any > >> conditions, and Uranus only faintly under > >> extraordinary circumstances. > > > >Well, you know Vonda, some of the more apocalyptic types seem to think > >we're in for a big huge cosmic cataclysm either next year or 1999 > >because all of the planets are going to be lined up (don't ask me if > >it's true...my astronomy knowledge ends with a "C" in freshman college > >astrophysics...though I did see Hale-Bopp). So, perhaps the planets > >will reveal themselves to us, and the Earth will be destroyed in a rain > >of fire and brimstone...or, perhaps, Ming the Merciless is going to > >attempt to crash Mongo into Earth... > > > >- Geoffrey