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 > >-- > > > >Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect > > > >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 > > To which Barbara Benesch tried to reply on the list, but managed only to send to Geoffrey, because "Aggravating On-Line" likes to mess with Barb's head: Okay, okay, I was only listening to the news with half an ear at like 2:30 in the morning, so I guess you'll need binoculars or something in order to actually see all the planets, but they _will_ all be in a row, and the astronomer-guy I heard talking about it said that it "didn't require any special equipment" which I translated as "with the naked eye" without first thinking it through. Also, this is only going to happen again in about a century. And, back in the '80s, I think that was actually an astral conjunction, not a planetary alignment. I could be completely wrong, in which case I give up completely, but I thought people might like to have their shot before Monday, as I for one don't imagine I'll likely be around for it when it happens next century. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:05:45 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: <971203025055_949914018@mrin54.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Here is the information. http://www.starhustler.com/scriptsg002.html The planets aren't "lined up" in the woo-woo apocalyptic world-is-coming-to-an-end sense. They're simply all in the sky at the same time. (You still can't see Neptune or Pluto with the naked eye, and can see Uranus only under extraordinary conditions without help.) Jupiter was next to the crescent moon this evening and was extraordinarily beautiful. Vonda On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:50:55 -0500, Barbara Benesch wrote: > >astronomer-guy I heard talking about it said that it "didn't require any >special equipment" which I translated as "with the naked eye" without first >thinking it through. Also, this is only going to happen again in about a >century.... http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:32:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Gate to Women's Country and heroism In-Reply-To: <199711292251.QAA26146@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Joanna Goltzman wrote: (snip) > Even when I strech > the traditional concept of heroism to include more than typical "male" > heroism, I can't see Stavia as particularly heroic. She doesn't do much in > the book except tell the story of her life in Women's Country. I don't think Stavia is supposed to be a hero. I see *Gate to Women's Country* as more of a "coming of age" story. Stavia makes some mistakes and faces some difficult choices. She has to face some truths about herself and her society that are painful to bear. (snip) > Perhaps Stavia isn't supposed to be a hero or is some sort of anti-hero. > Maybe the group of women who run Women's Country can be considered a group > hero. Any thoughts? I also don't see the female leaders of Women's Country as heroes. They merely maintain the status quo. They are concerned with continuing to implement a decision (to genetically alter humans) that was made several generations before. I don't see them coming up with more innovative ways of acheiving their goals. > Joanna > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:53:30 -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 Part 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Laura, for the help. I don't know why stuff would bounce from the aaas.org domain--our servers aren't that bad! Well, maybe on Thursdays when they are posting the new issue of Science Online to the servers out at Stanford. Getting back to the discussion at hand, I must take exception to the writer who mentioned "City of Quartz" and Strange Days in the same sentence. While "City of Quartz" is a great book, and I've been anxiously awaiting the sequel for years, Strange Days is simply a bad movie with no social insight. I've never been to L.A., but City of Quartz actually got me interested in someday making a trip there. Getting back to the theme of this list, I'm currently reading Butler's "Parable iof the Sower," which is the first book I've read of Butler's. She's been on my list of to-read authors for several years now. Pretty good so far. Chuck0 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:58:28 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Genre categories: Good or Evil? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I am old enough to remember when ALL SF was considered absolute mindrotting precious-bodily-polluting (thanks for Harlan Ellison for that term) communist atheist weird perverted trash that should be BURNED. I was born in Idaho in 1955. I had to get special permission and signed notes and all sortsa stuff from my parents when I wanted to start checking out books from the "adult" section of the public library when I was in junior high (the "children's" section was supposed to last us until we were 18). I remember when watching _Star Trek_ was considered weird, and I was part of the letter writing campaign that supposedly saved it for its third season. NOt until I was in college in another town (Bellingham, Washington) far from Moscow did I find ANY OTHER PERSON except my father who read SF--and these were fellow Trekkies. Most of my English teachers through college considered all literature by LIVING WRITERS but especially GENRE fiction to be trash. I had horrible experiences in creative writing classes when I turned in "that weird stuff." And I remember wonderful days within fandom talking endlessly about the stuff we loved, books and media, arguing for distinctions, categories, etc. It was obvious that different writers were doing different things: that there was a distinction to be made between the 90% of stuff that, as Theorodre Sturgeon so famously said, is crap (or mediocre, but which is necessary for the other 10%), and the other stuff. It was fun--and I don't remember it as being divise. Comics came in here too, though I wasn't as much into comics myself. J.R.R. Tolkien is not the same as John Norman, though both technically write "fantasy." Plus, literature, the field I work in, is defined by setting genre categories. Distinguishing is neither good nor evil--certainly setting hierarchies of what is "good" or "bad" can be problematic and often tied to institutional ideologies. But if you are thinking analytically about any text, you are making distinctions, comparing and contrasting, and defining. It is interesting to ask what defines science fiction, compared to fantasy, compared to speculative fiction, compared to alternative histories, compared to utopias and dystopias. The interesting thing is deciding what criteria to use--and learning the examine the techniques (which are often similar to those used in other literary genres). I'd say there was some SF that was "postmodern" before that term was invented. My general belief is that people can use anything to exclude people or material that makes them uncomfortable. But genre categories do not have to be used that way (any more than skin color), and the study of texts can be fascinating and wonderful and fun and nifty, using definitions, distinctions, similarites, etc. Robin he other stuff. Why do people think it has to be divisive or bad? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:06:00 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: Guy Gavriel Kay Corene McKay wrote (about Tolkien in reference to Kay and _The Fionavar Tapestry_): ---------- ... the writing is more pedestrian. ---------- Pedestrian? Pedestrian?? Ah, well, this is certainly not the time or place for me to have a fit about how great Tolkien is, but such a facile critique of such a fantastic writer seemed to me too wrong not to comment. ... I agree, though, that a few more women would have been nice.... Rhian Merris rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:15:00 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: SF/Sci-Fi Lindy Wrote: ---------- I am not comfortable dividing the sci fi category into "worthy" and "worthless," nor labeling someone negatively because of that person's taste in literature. Every one makes the distinction of worthiness on her or his own. ---------- Excellent. And quite apropos, I would think, given the other thread about how "worthy" SF might be thought to be academically. Rhian Merris rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:04:00 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: SF/Sci-Fi Neil Rest wrote: ---------- I'm startled that this slice of history has fallen so completely below the horizon. The neologism "sci fi" was, indeed, invented by Forrey Ackerman, who has a number of linguistic and lexocographic bees in his bonnet. (The older, rarely seen "stfnal" comes from the original coinage "scientifiction" by Hugo Gernsback.) "Fans", who were derided for their obsessive interest in a literature represented to the general public by bimbos in vinyl spacesuits being abducted by animate anipasto, needed to distinguish the serious, ambitious literature of ideas to which they were devoted from "The Eggplant That Ate Chicago", so they use "science fiction" or "sf" (or "SF") for our love, and "sci fi" for the cheesy 50s movies with the rubber suits. You may have other opinions on the tags selected, but the distinction, pre-Star Wars and pre-Star Trek, was important. 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. Is this any help? ---------- >From an historical perspective, yes. And it is certainly important to have that perspective. But I think that the rigidified distinction, which probably was important, as you say, "pre-Star Wars and pre-Star Trek" is no longer nearly so important. I don't think that we have to separate SF from sci-fi to lend it legitimacy. Obviously, there is a big difference between Le Guin and B-grade sci-fi film, but now that SF has as large an acceptance as it does, I think it is counter productive to make that rigid break along what I think is a fairly continuous spectrum. In other words, I think that there are a lot of works that fall somewhere in between, and should not necessarily be dismissed in their entirety simply for being cloaked in the guise of one side or the other. I think that there is a lot of "SF" that is very entertaining, and a lot of "sci-fi" that can be thought provoking, and contain literary elements. What do you think? Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:16:00 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 & book searches Vonda: Well, thank you again! ---------- http://www.mxbf.com/search/ ---------- This is great. The Availability of Hodgell is naturally small, but nonzero! Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:40:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Re: Aliens and Ripley Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I wonder if Aliens would have become the huge franchise it is today if Ripley's character had remained a man, as I believe the original script was written. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:11:00 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: Genre categories: Good or Evil? Robin wrote about the value of Genre categorization, SF, sci-fi, etc... ---------- Why do people think it has to be divisive or bad? ---------- Robin, For my part, I wasn't bothered by the search for some sort of categorization. Rather, I was bothered by some of the posts that seemed to cast aside as valueless elements of the SF/sci-fi continuum that did not fit into their preferred category. In other words, some of the anti-sci-fi posts seemed to be using these categorizations to deny value to a whole lot of works. Maybe I was misinterpreting. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:41:23 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Sci fi/SF & Genre categories (kinda long) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin, Thanks for posting your experiences. It helps me understand the discussion better. I was never put down for reading and loving sci fi or watching Star Trek, nor kept from the adult section at the library, even in grade school. Maybe this is why I never knew until recently the negative reputation of sci fi with which many on this list had to struggle. BTW, you seem to have survived the feared "brain rot" very well. >:-D Regarding categorizing into genre: Sure. Categories can be very useful and helpful in discussing and contrasting literature. I do not understand selecting a particular genre and labeling people who enjoy certain works within it as something insultingly negative while labeling others who read different works within the category as some sort of higher beings. We all bring our life experience into what we read. Whether something jibes with our world view or excites us enough to expand it, or makes us want to throw the book into the trash depends on subjective criteria. I have read works I considered mediocre. I don't consider the readers who enjoy these works to be mediocre. There are genres I don't touch because I've never gotten what I've wanted from them. I cannot label the readers of those genres as less discriminating than me. They're just different. I know people with doctoral degrees who read with relish stuff I find boring. I know a man who drives a semi and loves romance novels AND Yeats. Except in extreme cases (including hate propaganda) I cannot bring myself to look down at or up to someone because of choice of reading material. One of the aspects about sci fi is that it can be a marvelous vehicle for social commentary and change. I love reading about imaginary, complex cultures and beings of myriad forms: multi-tentacled beings, silicon-based life-forms, humanoid and arachnoid people. I love exploring the authors' creative solutions to social organization and conflict in cultures that do not actually exist (as far as I know). Some friends dislike this very aspect about sci fi and don't read the genre for that reason. They prefer to read about situations and solutions based on "here and now" reality (as they define it). It's loads of fun when I find people who enjoy some of the authors and topics that I do. Having a common frame of reference often allows the discussion to move past the need to define some of the basics and into juicy aspects. It's also stimulating to participate in discussions with those who prefer authors and genre's I don't like. If nothing else, I may find out why the genre attracts that individual, learning more about her or him. I may even find out something to enable me to appreciate an author or genre. Reading is such a marvelous experience for me. I support people in seeking and appreciating novels, stories, non-fiction and/or poetry. . . whatever speaks to them. Categorize into genre: sure. Discuss: yes. Choose for myself: yes. Define genre as worthy or not: no. Judge choices of others: no. Of course, this is my opinion based on what is important to me. Thanks, Lindy -- "If I had my past life to live over, I'd make all the same mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.best.com/~laorka Resources related to women, disabilities and literature ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:06:04 -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: Aliens and Ripley In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I wonder if Aliens would have become the huge franchise it is today if >Ripley's character had remained a man, as I believe the original script was >written. > > Interesting question. I'd say probably not because I think a huge part of the Aliens franchise's value is the still-novel concept of a woman in such a strong role. Where in movies, since the original _Alien_, have we seen heroines as strong as the Ripley character who are and remain the lead of the show? -Sean Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:14:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kirsten Corby Subject: Re: Guy Gavriel Kay << I think the issue here that troubles me (and whoever else it was commented about it--sorry, I deleted this message) is the very close way GGK sticks to his originals. >> I am going to have to stand up and agree with Lesley here. I've never thought that much of GGK, and this is one of the reasons why --his perfunctory attempts at worldbuilding. Speaking as a writer of fantasy with a degree in history, his work is a copout in this regard. (The later books anyway.) THE LIONS OF AL-RASSAN was quite the most egregious in this respect. It would be cool to create a fantasy world based on Moorish Spain. But to set it on a peninsula of land shaped *exactly like* the Iberian peninsula, and to change the religions of the land from transcendent monotheism to a facile paganism, just to make it seem more "fantasy-like" (the Jews, Christians and Moslems are made to worship the moons, the sun, and the stars, respectively) while keeping everything else about the culture and the politics the same as in real-life medieval Spain -- well, it bugs me. It's just lazy! He didn't do the work necessary to make it a real historical novel or historical fantasy, which it would have worked fine as since there were not that many fantastic elements in it anyway. Nor did he do the work to create an intruiging new fantasy world inspired by an exotic period of Earth history. Instead he came up with some kind of lazy-ass, slipshod hybrid. I think it is a disservice both to history, and to fantasy. The book was well-written enough. He's learned to put a rein on the Hallmark-card level Lord of the Rings prose he used to spew everywhere. The charcters are well drawn and the action scenes are good. Too bad the overall framework of the book is so shoddy. It was really a cheat on that level. I think he should pick a subgenre and stick to it -- historical fantasy or imaginary-world fantasy, instead of trying to get away without doing either. that's my .02. Kirsten ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:18:16 -1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Science Fiction Literature I sympathize with people who've had negative experiences from other people because of reading science fiction and fantasy. When I was in high school, we were allowed to write a term paper on a novel of our choice. I believe I chose DUNE by Frank Herbert but was told by my teacher that the novel is literature and science fiction stories are not novels by definition (!). I tried MY SECRET LIFE in revenge, but he wouldn't accept that either :-). I don't remember what "novel" I chose, but I didn't hesitate to tell the teacher that the novel was not regarded as literature itself when the novel first came out. In working on my master's, I've discovered that many professors do not regard science fiction and fantasy as real literature, or at least look their noses down on the genres. I understand they are teaching science fiction and fantasy stories in high schools now but 'twasn't so when I attended. I have little doubt that history will regard the greatest literary contribution of the 20th century and America/Britain in particular to be science fiction and fantasy. Is anyone else out there doing sf/f for master's work? SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // CARPENTER _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< \\ _\\\_ _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< // /// \\\ \\ Cindy Smith \\\ \\ _///_ // _///_ // _///_ // cms@dragon.com <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Delay not your conversion Woe to craven hearts and drooping hands, to the LORD, to the sinner who treads a double path! put it not off Woe to the faint of heart who trust not, from day to day who therefore will have no shelter! Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Woe to you who have lost hope! what will you do at the visitation of the LORD? Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 2:12-14 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:36:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <348594B6@msmailpc01.saic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Rhian Merris wrote: > Lindy Wrote: > > ---------- > I am not comfortable dividing the sci fi category into "worthy" > and "worthless," nor labeling someone negatively because of that > person's taste in literature. Every one makes the distinction > of worthiness on her or his own. > ---------- > > Excellent. And quite apropos, I would think, given the other thread > about how "worthy" SF might be thought to be academically. > > Rhian Merris > rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > Having been an sf fan since I was six and discovered The Spaceship Under the Apple Tree, Zip Zip Goes to Mars, and Space Cat (sorry, this was the mid 1950s), having gone on to read enormous quantities of the "junk" sf of the sixties (ie. DC comics, Tarzan, Perry Rhodan, Captain Future, Lin Carter, Gardner Fox, etc.), not to mention the officially sanctioned quality sf (Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Blish) of that era, and having then gone on to become an academic in English, I'm very familiar with both the snobbery that causes mainstream academics to look down on science fiction in general and the snobbery that causes readers of "quality sf" (Le Guin, Dick, Russ, Gibson) to look down on what they call "Sci Fi" (Star Trek, Star Wars, Piers Anthony, etc.), and I don't much like such attitudes. Snobbery aside, however, it does need to be said that all science fiction isn't the same, doesn't serve the same purposes, and isn't likely to interest the same people. Ursula Le Guin and William Gibson are both trying to do something fundamentally different from what your average Star Trek novel is trying to do. There is an overlap, and that's why all three qualify as science fiction, but there's still a major difference as well. Similarly, when Vonda McIntyre published her recent major novel she was trying to do something different from and more ambitious than what she tries to do with her Star Trek novels, excellent as those books are. Some books are designed primarily to be a good read, mind popcorn, perhaps superb mind popcorn with added vitamins and minerals, but still popcorn. Other books are designed to deal on a much more complex level with a variety of artistic, political, personal or moral issues. Such books, when they succeed, might be said to be "more important" or "better" than the lighter entertainments in that they're a lot harder to do. But "better" in this case isn't, or shouldn't be, a moral issue; it's an aesthetic issue. Besides, different people read for different reasons. Heck, each individual reads for different reasons at different times. The Female Man, Motherlines, and The Dispossessed are three serious SF novels that I have enormous regard for and reread periodically, but when I go to the beach I'm much more likely to take something by Lois McMaster Bujold or even, gasp, a Star Trek novel. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:10:02 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: P.C. Hodgell & book searches In-Reply-To: <3485B0F9@msmailpc01.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Rhian, My pleasure. I was pretty amazed by the place. Especially the $350 copy of Dreamsnake. Yikes. Vonda On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:16:00 EST, Rhian Merris wrote: >Vonda: > >Well, thank you again! > > ---------- >http://www.mxbf.com/search/ > ---------- > >This is great. The Availability of Hodgell is naturally small, but >nonzero! > >Rhian >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.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: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:35:56 -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 In-Reply-To: <000D45AB.1205@aaas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, well what can I say? Seems like this film is something like _Beavis and Butt-head_ and Courtney Love. Some people find it too special to be understood by everyone, others claim it's just a disgusting example of bad taste. I like _Beavis and Butt-head_, Coutney Love, Strange Days, Marylin Manson, and some other off-mainstream stuff. If that by any means puts me outside the circle of "any self-respecting intellectuals" (a quote from the anti-Strange Days half of the thread), that's just too bad. I also watch porn movies sometimes (and my main objections to them are: first, that there is nothing in that for straight women, and second, that this sometimes really gross stuff is the only currently available image of female sexuality). Finally, I shave my legs and believe in God, neither of which was any part of mainstream culture in the country I grew up, by the way. I shave my legs because I like it better this way, I did it in a place where it was considered weird, and I'll still do it even if no one else does anymore. The same with religion. And whether it's cool or not, at this point, I honestly don't give a damn. Strange Days is a great movie. The best sf action I've seen in a long, lomg time. I hope there will be more like that, and I'm sure there will. People who think the relations between people there were unbelievable obviosly never had any serious crap happening to them in this life. I've seen stories exactly like that, and I've seen worse. And you can't dismiss the facts of life just because they don't fall into the way people are "supposed to" act. Actually, in my humble opinion, this was the first action movie that had any resemblance to real life and real people, instead of all-positive heroes who never do anything stupid, get into abusive relationships, or in any other way break the magazine-advice-column "rules of behavior". All of this is my opinion only, it in no way represents anything but that, and if anyone is going to get upset to the point of using strong language, don't forget to stick "IMHO"s around it, it will look better. Regards, Marina "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:08:40 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: Rising of the Moon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lorry and anyone else, I'm curious about what you liked about this book. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed so repetitious that I put it in the resell pile and wouldn't recommend it. The main character was interesting and the premise and women's underground was fascinating. But most of the book seemed to be a platform for tedious repetition of the main ideological points. Not that I disagreed with it, I just didn't want to hear them over and over. I don't have the book in front of me and read it some time ago, so I don't remember the details of what frustrated me. It's not that I wanted more action, just less talk(!) Anyone else have this reaction? On some reflection, it's possible a sequel could avoid this problem. Jennifer Lorry B. Bond wrote: > Yea, I think you are right, but . . . I got the sense that shipping only > the "rebel" wimmin from Ireland was only the beginning -- besides which, > aren't all thinking, breathing, independent wimmin considered "rebels" in > most cultures on our planet ??? ;) I'm still waiting for the sequel (oh, > where, oh where, is it, Flynn?????) Still one of the best books I've ever > read! > > At 09:21 AM 11/27/97 -0800, you wrote: > >It's been a few years since I read RISING OF THE MOON and I don't have > >the text on hand, but ... > > > >** SPOILERS ** > removed to keep this shorter... > >> Lorry > >> > > > >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 > > -- Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ---------------------------------------------------------- ++ Actioneering: the art and science of getting it done ++ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 20:50:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: The Jeli's Subject: Re: Aliens and Ripley MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Interesting question. I'd say probably not because I think a huge part of >the Aliens franchise's value is the still-novel concept of a woman in such >a strong role. Where in movies, since the original _Alien_, have we seen >heroines as strong as the Ripley character who are and remain the lead of >the show? The only example that comes close that I can think of is Sarah Connor in the Terminator movies. Cami ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ utaar@cnnw.net http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/7115 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "What we call human nature in actuality is human habit" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:07:16 -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: Sci fi/SF & Genre categories (kinda long) Well said, Lindy! I think you summarized what I think are the best arguments for why the SF genre has literary and intellectual merits that are both unique and shared with other genres. One book that impressed me recently was Hyperion by Dan Simmons. The novel's complex story line(s) include well-developed characters (many of which were female), insightful commentaries on what a future civilization based on earth's descendents may be, and countless references to John Keats and other literary and cultural media. On top of that it had creative and original ideas about time travel and alien life. Hyperion is the first in a series (as the novel's unresolved ending is disappointing to some readers), and the rest of the series is on my "to read" list (which has grown exponentially since I subscribed to this list server). -----Original Message----- From: Lindy S. L. Lovvik To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, December 03, 1997 3:57 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Sci fi/SF & Genre categories (kinda long) >Robin, > >Thanks for posting your experiences. It helps me >understand the discussion better. > >I was never put down for reading and loving sci >fi or watching Star Trek, nor kept from the adult >section at the library, even in grade school. Maybe >this is why I never knew until recently the negative >reputation of sci fi with which many on this list had >to struggle. > >BTW, you seem to have survived the feared "brain rot" >very well. >:-D > >Regarding categorizing into genre: Sure. Categories >can be very useful and helpful in discussing and >contrasting literature. > >I do not understand selecting a particular genre and >labeling people who enjoy certain works within it as >something insultingly negative while labeling others >who read different works within the category as some >sort of higher beings. > >We all bring our life experience into what we read. >Whether something jibes with our world view or excites >us enough to expand it, or makes us want to throw the >book into the trash depends on subjective criteria. > >I have read works I considered mediocre. I don't >consider the readers who enjoy these works to be >mediocre. > >There are genres I don't touch because I've never >gotten what I've wanted from them. I cannot label >the readers of those genres as less discriminating >than me. They're just different. > >I know people with doctoral degrees who read with >relish stuff I find boring. I know a man who drives >a semi and loves romance novels AND Yeats. > >Except in extreme cases (including hate propaganda) I >cannot bring myself to look down at or up to someone >because of choice of reading material. > >One of the aspects about sci fi is that it can be >a marvelous vehicle for social commentary and change. >I love reading about imaginary, complex cultures and >beings of myriad forms: multi-tentacled beings, >silicon-based life-forms, humanoid and arachnoid >people. > >I love exploring the authors' creative solutions to >social organization and conflict in cultures that do >not actually exist (as far as I know). > >Some friends dislike this very aspect about sci fi and >don't read the genre for that reason. They prefer >to read about situations and solutions based on >"here and now" reality (as they define it). > >It's loads of fun when I find people who enjoy some of >the authors and topics that I do. Having a common frame >of reference often allows the discussion to move past >the need to define some of the basics and into juicy >aspects. > >It's also stimulating to participate in discussions >with those who prefer authors and genre's I don't >like. If nothing else, I may find out why the genre >attracts that individual, learning more about her or >him. I may even find out something to enable me to >appreciate an author or genre. > >Reading is such a marvelous experience for me. I >support people in seeking and appreciating novels, >stories, non-fiction and/or poetry. . . whatever >speaks to them. > >Categorize into genre: sure. >Discuss: yes. >Choose for myself: yes. >Define genre as worthy or not: no. >Judge choices of others: no. > >Of course, this is my opinion based on what is important >to me. > >Thanks, > >Lindy >-- >"If I had my past life to live over, I'd make all the same > mistakes, only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead > >http://www.best.com/~laorka >Resources related to women, disabilities and literature ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:52:16 -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: Genre categories: Good or Evil? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > I'd say there was some SF that was "postmodern" before that term was > invented. Excuse me as I paraphrase: "Postmodernism is an illusion. Poststructuralism doubly so." :) - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 01:00:50 -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: Genre categories: Good or Evil? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just slightly off the topic, all, but... If you find yourself near the latest _GQ_ (with John Cusack on the cover), flip to the very last page of the mag and check out "Barnes Ennobled." Well worth it. :) - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:59:36 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Science Fiction Literature In-Reply-To: <009BE38F.86413300.49@dragon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Cindy Smith wrote: > I have little doubt that history will regard the > greatest literary contribution of the 20th century and America/Britain > in particular to be science fiction and fantasy. > So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is running Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:51:48 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Strange Days movie Comments: To: Le Anne Fossmeyer In-Reply-To: Le Anne Fossmeyer 's message of Mon, 1 Dec 1997 08:36:03 -0800 Say, could you post a list of 5-10 other films you don't like? I'd like to bring that list with me the next time I'm going to rent some videos... Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no > 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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:59:15 -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: Science Fiction Literature In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Cindy Smith wrote: > >> I have little doubt that history will regard the >> greatest literary contribution of the 20th century and America/Britain >> in particular to be science fiction and fantasy. >> > >So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is running >Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! > > >.............................................................................. > >Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social >Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > >http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > >Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Cool! How do I get in? -Sean >Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media > >.............................................................................. Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:00:11 -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" CMunson wrote: >Getting back to the discussion at hand, I must take exception to the writer >who mentioned "City of Quartz" and Strange Days in the same sentence. While >"City of Quartz" is a great book, and I've been anxiously awaiting the >sequel for years, Strange Days is simply a bad movie with no social >insight. I've never been to L.A., but City of Quartz actually got me >interested in someday making a trip there. I don't think James Cameron was going for social commentary. In truth it wasn't all that original as far as the storyline goes. But the visuals were compelling, and that's what struck me about the film. It was formally speaking an interesting film. Contentwise, there are far more interesting stuff out there about the fin de millenium (like the program, _Millennium_ itself). My gloss on _CIty of Quartz_ was for people who had seen the movie and were interested in reading more about Los Angeles. There was no strict connection being made between the two texts. Sorry about the miscommunication. 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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:13:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erik Tsao Subject: genres, etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? 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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:15:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Scot Ryder Subject: Re: Sci fi/SF & Genre categories (kinda long) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christine Boltz wrote: > Well said, Lindy! I think you summarized what I think are the best > arguments for why the SF genre has literary and intellectual merits that are > both unique and shared with other genres. > > One book that impressed me recently was Hyperion by Dan Simmons. The > novel's complex story line(s) include well-developed characters (many of > which were female), insightful commentaries on what a future civilization > based on earth's descendents may be, and countless references to John Keats > and other literary and cultural media. On top of that it had creative and > original ideas about time travel and alien life. Hyperion is the first in a > series (as the novel's unresolved ending is disappointing to some readers), > and the rest of the series is on my "to read" list (which has grown > exponentially since I subscribed to this list server). This is a great book to mention in a discussion over the literary merits of SF, as Hyperion parrallels Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, a work with some recognized litery merits of it's own. Scot Ryder ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:32:28 -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: genres, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As someone who hopes to study popular fiction as part of popular culture, YES it's a part. I would say part of the problem in defining popular culture is defining the audience. Who is reading/watching/listening and how you determine consumption will affect inclusion. I might admit that popular media is changing in this century (film, radio, etc) but maybe we haven't considered past examples of popular media enough (such as magazine illustrations, pulp magazines/books of the late 19th/early 20th century). Does this help? Thinking specifically of science fiction as popular culture, if it in some way reflects on a popular consciousness (or some part of it) then it would be popular and I think that's been well-documented enough. misha bernard@colorado.edu Oh, that and the fact popular culture studies are mostly in departments heavily associated (historically) with English depts if not actually in them should also mean something. >---------- >From: Erik Tsao[SMTP:aa1004@WAYNE.EDU] >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:13 AM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: [*FSFFU*] genres, etc. > >Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue >against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I >think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that >people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, >television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite >right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure >fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and >fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen >in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such >as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular >fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? > >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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:48:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: Pop culture and fiction was RE: [*FSFFU*] genres, etc. Erik Tsao wrote: ---------- Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ---------- Definitely. I think that last part is crucial, as well as very interesting. Granted, there are forms of pop culture with wider audiences than popular fiction, but these are _connected_. And in both directions. Popular fiction virtually always draws elements from popular culture, whether consciously or not. And even if the viewers don't necessarily recognize it, many writers and directors, musicians, and what not, may be drawing elements from popular fiction that _they_ have read. One of the most interesting examples of this to me is Frank Miller's _Dark Knight Returns_. This, a graphic novel, a comic, (albeit of the grandest and most literary variety) has, in my opinion, had a major impact throughout a great deal of popular culture. I think largest and most obvious effect that it had was via Tim Burton in the dark tone of the first two Batman movies. I will withhold full explanation on this for the moment, since it would be extensive, and I only brought it up illustratively. DKR, itself, and Frank Miller's works in general are tied deeply into the cyberpunk subgenre, again bidirectionally. The Batman movies have, by making bucketloads of money, had a powerful cascade into other areas of pop culture. Anyway, my point in all that is that, yes, I strongly agree that popular fiction can and does have a vastly greater influence on popular culture in general than a statistical analysis of direct consumption might suggest. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:27:31 -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: genres, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik- While my curiousity is peaked about which student you were talking with (some of you may have made the connection that Erik and I hail from the same university, though I'm not officially connected to the English department any longer), I would have to say that pop fiction is secure in its place in pop culture. I especially think of Stephen King stating that reading one of his books is the literary equiv. to a Big Mac and fries. There do seem to be many, many authors in pop fiction who write specifically as filler and probably view themselves as the Whoppers and Big Macs of the lit world... - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:29:38 -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: Science Fiction Literature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sean Johnston wrote: >Cool! How do I get in? It usually takes an application. ;) - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:00:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: NESchaadt Subject: Re: genres, etc. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Would it be overstating the obvious to say that it takes less time to watch a film than to read a book? Perhaps the popularity of such texts (including magazines--which reproduce faster than rabbits) is fed by time constraints. It's funny, a friend and I came up with a wonderful (to us) argument for people who say that books are too expensive. If it takes 25 hours to read a hardcover book that costs US$20.00 you've got a real bargain. Nancy Schaadt Erik Tsao asked: (with huge snips) >>people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, >television, etc. than to read popular fiction. >Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen >in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such >as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular >fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:46:00 CST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Gabrielle Bate Subject: Re: Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi > >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 ** French for science fiction is science-fiction, pronounced like French because those are French words. It is often abbreviated to SF. I personally am very fond of SFQ, science-fiction quebecoise. I don't know about any other languages. I meant to reply to this earlier, but it got lost in my mailbox. Gabby Bate ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:15:53 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Science fiction and historians (was Science Fiction Literature) Edward James wrote: >So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is running >Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! I get the impression that there are several historians on this list: am I right? (count me as one of them.) Any reason why historians in particular might like science fiction? Possibly some of the same quality of estrangement as good historical fiction? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 14:57:44 -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: Science fiction and historians (was Science FictionLiterature) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, historians (at least those I know) like to read about other times/places/cultures which can often be just what the worlds created in science fiction are. If only I could get my sister (historian) to believe this and read SF! misha >---------- >From: Lesley Hall[SMTP:Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM] >Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 1:15 PM >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Science fiction and historians (was Science >FictionLiterature) > >Edward James wrote: > >So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is >running > >Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! > >I get the impression that there are several historians on this list: am I >right? (count me as one of them.) Any reason why historians in particular >might like science fiction? Possibly some of the same quality of estrangement >as good historical fiction? >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 15:56:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: From the UNM LOBO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "When a man loves his cock more than his family, how do you get his attention?" From the review of a play called "Roosters." Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:46:11 -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: No need to make it personal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain In response to: ***************************** -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Gramstad [SMTP:thomasg@ifi.uio.no] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 1997 2:52 AM To: Le Anne Fossmeyer Cc: feministsf@listserv.uic.edu Subject: Re: Strange Days movie Say, could you post a list of 5-10 other films you don't like? I'd like to bring that list with me the next time I'm going to rent some videos... Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no **************************** Gosh, I tried not to offend those who liked the movie. I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt by stating that I might I have seen a different version of the flick (San Diego, where I live, gets to be a test market for everything from movies to new fast-food items). I even went out of my way in another posting to admit my perception may have been biased by my environment. While I insulted the movie (and I wasn't the only one), I tried very hard NOT to insult those who found something worthwhile in it. So what do I get for that? I get your borderline obnoxious response--not once but twice. You send it not only send it to my e-mail address directly but also to the entire list. Did you think I'd miss the insult if I didn't read it two times? Did you want to make sure I knew that you meant it for me in particular? Did you just want to make sure that everyone else got to read your joking insult? Anyway, I have a sense of humor so I'll pander to you. Here's a list of other movies that suck. Rent every one of them. These aren't the worst movies ever made; they are only the worst movies I've actually seen. Clash of the Titans Anachonda Over the Top Valley Girl --this does have camp value.... Cocktails Bar Girls Movies you should avoid because I think they are good. Also, not the best movies ever made, just the best that I've seen recently that might not have shown at the multi-plex: Brazil Drugstore Cowboy Clerks Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls In Love Bound (you might like this because it does have some lame dialogue and stars Jennifer Tilly--widely considered a "bad" actress) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:17:14 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Wigod Subject: Re: No need to make it personal In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A538@sdmail.dataworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, Le Anne! I haven't been following this thread at all (been too busy following a transsexual thread on another list!) and only opened this one 'cuz I didn't know where it came from, but, since it was So Damn Fascinating, I read on! Anyway, since you listed "Brazil" as one of your favorite movies, I knew you had to be a Person of Discriminating Taste. But then I saw "Clerks" on your list. ;-) And I always allow people their own taste (you'll be happy to know), but since I saw other lesbian movies on there, I suspected you may be Family, and (sheesh - is this the world's longest run-on sentence or what?) I personally found "Clerks" so misogynistic, I just HAD to ask you if you agree with my opinion at all. And, what did you think of "Chasing Amy"? When I saw "Clerks," I thought, "Great writing, but too much sexist crap" and hoped that something better might come from these guys..... But I resisted seeing "Chasing Amy" because I didn't necessarily approve of any film that will further fuel the Straight Guy Fantasy that lesbians can be converted. But when a friend I really respected insisted I see it, I saw it and ended up really enjoying it (although I had some issue with the fact that she made such a quick turn-around in the crucial confrontation scene without any previous evidence that she was the least bit attracted to this guy.....). Anyway, I guess I'm just curious as to how you got past all that sexist crap in "Clerks" when you are obviously a woman of discernment. :-) Laura ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:47:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: gentle reminder from list-mistress In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A538@sdmail.dataworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII (1) personal comments such as "hooray" or "good for you!" or "your taste sucks" are more appropriately sent to the individual than to the entire list. before you post, please consider: do 280+ people really want to read what i'm typing in, right now? if it's a response that's only interesting to one person, send it directly to them, and not back to the list. (2) staying on topic is a good thing and much to be desired. the topic is feminism & science fiction/fantasy/utopias. discussion of feminist sf/f/u criticism, concepts, writers or creators, or the conjunction of feminism *and* sf/f/u in film, books, comix, zines, is the purpose of this discussion. your western list-mistress, laura quilter ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:58:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: more on films - antonia's line In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A538@sdmail.dataworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII antonia's line - spoilers begin in third paragraph OK, if we're going to have a discussion about films, then i have to bring up a movie that was out about the same time as that l.a. virtual reality turn-of-the-millennium thing everyone is discussing (the title slips my mind just now). "antonia's line." (and, yes, it does qualify as on-topic. there were several magical / hallucinatory events in the film. ok, they weren't a major part of the plot but they did add to the general atmosphere) i really, really loved this movie; it and "dead man" (also vaguely magical-realistic - not to be confused with "dead man walking") were my two favorite films of the year. but, alas, i've seen very little discussion of the film anywhere. (it did win the oscar for best foreign film for whatever that year was, 95 or 96) when i saw the film, i was entranced; as i was leaving, the entire audience seemed equally entranced; we all came out with misty eyes and huge grins on our faces, saying "wow" - males and females. but in general the male reaction to the film has been muted or negative; females who've seen it with me much enjoyed it. it received a really good review from, i think, MS., at the time. but the CHICAGO READER and the (chicago) NEW CITY (two local "alternative" free weeklies) both panned it (male reviewers). oddly enough they said there were no good male roles in the movie, and that it was cloyingly feminist. i thought this was remarkable, since antonia's lover seemed positive; also the freaky guy (lumpy? what was his name?) seemed like a nice guy; and finally the husband-boyfriend of the mathematician whiz was nice. and the preacher turned out to be a sympathetic character too. i feel that i am attuned to sexism - even reverse sexism - and i just didn't get any of that from the film. i'd like to hear others' reactions. 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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:45:11 -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: genres, etc. If I am understanding this correctly, your fellow student was saying that the written word is no longer a reflection of popular culture because people have abandoned it for other media such as film and tv. I agree with you that he is mistaken. I do not have any statistics on whether more people are reading now than they were a few decades ago, but it seems like fiction has evolved so that it is more omnipresent than ever before and both reflects and influences other cultural media. As you said, fiction is closely tied to these other media, such as movies based on novels and novels based on television series. Sometimes they are a little too closely tied--like books whose original covers have been replaced by the ad for the movie (which I have a personal dislike for). -----Original Message----- From: Erik Tsao To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:25 AM Subject: [*FSFFU*] genres, etc. >Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue >against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I >think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that >people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, >television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite >right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure >fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and >fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen >in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such >as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular >fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? > >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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:36:40 -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: more on films - antonia's line MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I really LOVED _Antonia's Line_. I thought it was a great movie, great acting, great plot, great anything. I loved it. The Angel scene especially. And I liked the Doctor/professor guy. I am so glad to hear that another person liked it. I was introduced to it by and ex-boyfriend. He said it was wonderful, and I agreed. -----Original Message----- From: Laura Quilter To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 8:36 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] more on films - antonia's line >antonia's line - spoilers begin in third paragraph > >OK, if we're going to have a discussion about films, then i have to bring >up a movie that was out about the same time as that l.a. virtual reality >turn-of-the-millennium thing everyone is discussing (the title slips my >mind just now). "antonia's line." (and, yes, it does qualify as >on-topic. there were several magical / hallucinatory events in the film. >ok, they weren't a major part of the plot but they did add to the general >atmosphere) i really, really loved this movie; it and "dead man" (also >vaguely magical-realistic - not to be confused with "dead man walking") >were my two favorite films of the year. but, alas, i've seen very little >discussion of the film anywhere. (it did win the oscar for best foreign >film for whatever that year was, 95 or 96) > >when i saw the film, i was entranced; as i was leaving, the entire >audience seemed equally entranced; we all came out with misty eyes and >huge grins on our faces, saying "wow" - males and females. but in general >the male reaction to the film has been muted or negative; females who've >seen it with me much enjoyed it. > >it received a really good review from, i think, MS., at the time. but the >CHICAGO READER and the (chicago) NEW CITY (two local "alternative" free >weeklies) both panned it (male reviewers). oddly enough they said there >were no good male roles in the movie, and that it was cloyingly feminist. >i thought this was remarkable, since antonia's lover seemed positive; also >the freaky guy (lumpy? what was his name?) seemed like a nice guy; and >finally the husband-boyfriend of the mathematician whiz was nice. and the >preacher turned out to be a sympathetic character too. i feel that i am >attuned to sexism - even reverse sexism - and i just didn't get any of >that from the film. i'd like to hear others' reactions. > >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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:10:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: MARINA YERESHENKO Subject: Re: Social Fantasy, Was: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <27120414460931@vms2.macc.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In Russian, "science fiction" is called something like "scientific fantastics". I'm not sure if "fantastics" is a legal word in English, but it's a noun derived from "fantastic" and it's different from "fantasy". The term (sf) is used in Russian-speaking literature for anything non-realistic (and therefore "fantastical") in the sense that it describes something that could not possibly happen in real life at the time it was written. This way, Russian term for sf includes everything from Gerbert Wells and Jules Vernes to Tolkien, Stephen King, Star Wars, Robocop, and Isaak Azimov. It took me some time to learn how to distinguish, say, fantasy and horror, s ince in my language it was all the same genre. It still often seems kind of arbitrary to me. Like, how many people should die to make the story a "horror"? Or how "unscientific" it has to be to shift from "science fiction" to "fantasy"? However, it poses a problem only when I am looking for a book in a bookstore and have to figure out whether it's going to be in SF, Fantasy, or even Mystery section. Marina On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Gabrielle Bate wrote: > > > >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 ** > > French for science fiction is science-fiction, pronounced like French because > those are French words. It is often abbreviated to SF. I personally am very > fond of SFQ, science-fiction quebecoise. I don't know about any other > languages. > > I meant to reply to this earlier, but it got lost in my mailbox. > > Gabby Bate > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society happens to be selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:29:43 -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: Science Fiction Literature An MA in science fiction--awesome! Can you tell me more? -----Original Message----- From: Sean Johnston To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Science Fiction Literature >>On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Cindy Smith wrote: >> >>> I have little doubt that history will regard the >>> greatest literary contribution of the 20th century and America/Britain >>> in particular to be science fiction and fantasy. >>> >> >>So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is running >>Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! >> >> >>.......................................................................... .... >> >>Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social >>Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK >> >>http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm >> >>Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION > >Cool! How do I get in? > >-Sean >>Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media >> >>.......................................................................... .... > > >Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 21:10:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Corene McKay Subject: Re: Guy Gavriel Kay In-Reply-To: <348592DE@msmailpc01.saic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:06 pm 03/12/97 EST, you wrote: >Corene McKay wrote (about Tolkien in reference to Kay and _The Fionavar >Tapestry_): > > ---------- >... the writing is more pedestrian. > ---------- > >Pedestrian? Pedestrian?? Ah, well, this is certainly not the time or >place for me to have a fit about how great Tolkien is, but such a facile >critique of such a fantastic writer seemed to me too wrong not to >comment. > >... I agree, though, that a few more women would have been nice.... > >Rhian Merris >rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com I knew I should have qualified that. What I said was me trying to explain my subjective (based entirely on my emotional response and not in any way on an examination of the text itself) reaction. Which was heavily influenced by the fact that most of my friends are so utterly in love with Tolkein that I think I was expecting something above God. It was bizarre: I'd carry the book around with me, and people I was barely aquainted with would sigh, get all misty eyed, and say "Ohhh, you're losing your Tolkein virginity." And I didn't mean pedestrian as in unimaginative, I meant it as in more down-to-earth, less over-the-top poetic. Er, less "Hallmarkish," shall we say. Not to say I dislike Tolkein, the only writer I dislike is Dickens (please no yelling from Dickens fans, I've heard it all). I fully agree that Tolkein's a great writer, and he definitely has a richness that Kay lacks. I'm sitting here with both texts trying to figure out if they support anything I'm saying, but I've written three genre analysis essays in the last 24 hours (which coincidentally is how long I've been awake), and my brain is too fried to analyze something as straightforward as text. So anything I said here I may not agree with in the morning, but I felt compelled to say it anyway. Speaking of which Kirsten Corby wrote: I am going to have to stand up and agree with Lesley here. I've never thought that much of GGK, and this is one of the reasons why --his perfunctory attempts at worldbuilding. Speaking as a writer of fantasy with a degree in history, his work is a copout in this regard. (The later books anyway.) THE LIONS OF AL-RASSAN was quite the most egregious in this respect. It would be cool to create a fantasy world based on Moorish Spain. But to set it on a peninsula of land shaped *exactly like* the Iberian peninsula, and to change the religions of the land from transcendent monotheism to a facile paganism, just to make it seem more "fantasy-like" (the Jews, Christians and Moslems are made to worship the moons, the sun, and the stars, respectively) while keeping everything else about the culture and the politics the same as in real-life medieval Spain -- well, it bugs me. And I write: I think what he seems to be doing is working under the notion that Fionavar is the "Main World" and other worlds are further and further away from it, so that's what he's doing with the worlds in his books, getting closer and closer to Earth with each one. I also think this is terribly gimmicky, and I agree that his use of setting is way too simplistic to pull it off. Corene McKay ed_res@op.douglas.bc.ca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:03:23 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: AnnyMiddon Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-02 23:41:36 EST, rstoler@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU writes: > >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 I didn't mean to imply that your definition was limited; I think it's as accurate as any concise definition can be. I meant it more as a general question: Alternative History stories are considered science fiction, instead of fantasy. Why is this so? Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:03:37 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: AnnyMiddon Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: genres, etc. Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-04 15:43:44 EST, nschaadt@TXCC.NET writes: > Would it be overstating the obvious to say that it takes less time to watch > a film than to read a book? Perhaps the popularity of such texts > (including magazines--which reproduce faster than rabbits) is fed by time > constraints. Time constraints seem to be the popular explanation. I've been told numerous times, "You read books? Gosh, I wish I had the time to read a book." But it sometimes seems that the people who say this have pride in their voices. It's as if they are saying that they are too busy with meaningful activities to do something frivolous like read. I believe that people generally find the time to do what they want to do. I read books, but I don't watch much TV, and I very rarely watch TV sports. Plenty of people in the US spend five or six hours on Sunday watching (American) football. Even a fairly slow reader can read half of a good-sized novel in that time. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:03:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: AnnyMiddon Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-03 13:45:05 EST, RHIAN.M.MERRIS@CPMX.MAIL.SAIC.COM writes: > In other words, I think that there are a lot of works that fall somewhere > in between, and should not necessarily be dismissed in their entirety > simply for being cloaked in the guise of one side or the other. I think > that there is a lot of "SF" that is very entertaining, and a lot of > "sci-fi" that can be thought provoking, and contain literary elements. I'm not sure I can always make the distinction between SF and sci-fi. OK, I can call Independence Day sci-fi, and Contact SF, but there are plenty of works that I can't categorize. Take Terminator 2, for example. I really like this movie, enough so that its release on DVD was a hotly-awaited event at my house. But for years I assumed it was sci-fi. After all, it was a blockbuster picture with plenty of chase scenes and action, starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, and featured an overused tagline ("Hasta la vista, baby.") How could it not be sci-fi? I considered liking T2 to be a guilty pleasure. Then I found out that Terminator 2 won a Hugo in 1992 for Best Dramatic Presentation. Well, okay, that doesn't make it SF. But it does indicate that a lot of people besides me thought it was a quality movie. Or what about Babylon 5? I'm fond of this show, but I can't tell if it's SF or sci-fi. Every time I think I've decided, I change my mind. But it's fun and it's thought-provoking. Why categorize it? I think it's time to retire the terms. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:25:04 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthony Mouasso Subject: Nirvana MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit O.K i present myself, my first name: Anthony, i'm french, i'm on the list since february 97, i work on video game industry as a screenwriter ( write S.F Books in France is very difficult, few readers, little market! ) ( excuse my poor english!! ) Is anyone have seen "Nirvana" a Cyberpunk Thriller with Christophe Lambert? ( who have roles in "Highlander" and "Greystoke" ), made by an italian director, i don't remember his name! In my opinion this movie is the best i've ever seen since "Blade Runner", in this style of course! The actresses don't have "barby girl roles". The relationships between the characters are really developped and really human. For me it's a wonderful thing because all of that is on a S.F movie with special effects. It's extremely rare in this type of movie. The screenplay is excellent and also the way to shoot, really near to us and of all the preoccupations we could have in the future. And, What do you think about this book "Eon" by Greg Bear? i've read it few months ago, i think it's interesting because it's hard science book, but the first character is a scientific female and also the writer is a male! i'm intererested to have female point of view on it. Anthony tony.mouasso@hol.fr ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:02:55 +0000 Reply-To: Edward James Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Science fiction and historians (was Science Fiction Literature) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > I get the impression that there are several historians on this list: am I > right? (count me as one of them.) Any reason why historians in particular > might like science fiction? Possibly some of the same quality of estrangement > as good historical fiction? > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > Kim Stanley Robinson has argued that science fiction is primarily an historical fiction: writing the imagined history of the future, or, sometimes, an altered past. _Reading_ science fiction is like being an actual historian: reconstructing the world in which the action is set from the clues provided by the text. Edward James Dept of History etc etc, U of Reading, UK ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:10:55 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Science Fiction Literature In-Reply-To: <0423333260305c7UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Since I have had several enquiries about the Science Fiction MA I mentioned in an aside last week on this list, I hope folks won't mind me plugging it here. Details can be found from the Web site mentioned below; and if you don't have access to the Web and would like details or an application form, forward me your snail-mail address to my e-mail address. And we have a poster coming out soon: if any of you is in an institution that could usefully display a poster, please let me have your address too! Thanks. End of commercial break... :-) Edward James .............................................................................. Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media .............................................................................. On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Christine Boltz wrote: > An MA in science fiction--awesome! Can you tell me more? > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Johnston > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Science Fiction Literature > > > >>On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Cindy Smith wrote: > >> > >>> I have little doubt that history will regard the > >>> greatest literary contribution of the 20th century and America/Britain > >>> in particular to be science fiction and fantasy. > >>> > >> > >>So perhaps it is no coincidence that a historian (myself!) is running > >>Reading University's new MA in Science Fiction! > >> > >> > >>.......................................................................... > .... > >> > >>Professor Edward James, Dept of History, Faculty of Letters and Social > >>Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, READING RG6 6AA, UK > >> > >>http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~lhsjamse/home.htm > >> > >>Editor, FOUNDATION: THE INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION > > > >Cool! How do I get in? > > > >-Sean > >>Director of Studies, MA in Science Fiction: Histories, Texts, Media > >> > >>.......................................................................... > .... > > > > > >Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.--Author Unknown > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:57:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: Tolkien Corene: Just a quick note here, since this is now off-topic. I'll respond in more detail privately. At any rate, thanks for the further explanation Corene McKay wrote: ---------- And I didn't mean pedestrian as in unimaginative, I meant it as in more down-to-earth, less over-the-top poetic. Er, less "Hallmarkish," shall we say. ---------- Ah. Good, good. That, in fact, is Tolkien's intent - particularly in The Hobbit. A "hallmark" :) of Tolkien's writing is to tell the grandest of stories without losing a down-to-earth feel. I think it's tremendously effective at welcoming the reader into something that otherwise might feel very self-indulgent, and caught up in its own grandeur. Anyway, I took your original comment, without context as it was, to mean pedestrian in the sense of common, unremarkable; rather than the sense of down-to-earth. Thanks. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:36:00 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: Nirvana Anthony wrote: ---------- Is anyone have seen "Nirvana" a Cyberpunk Thriller with Christophe Lambert? ( who have roles in "Highlander" and "Greystoke" ), made by an italian director, i don't remember his name! ---------- Gabriele Salvatores. I don't think this has been released everywhere yet. (The U.S., for instance). I think its primary release was in Italy and France (and UK?). I may be wrong about that. Anyway, I'm eagerly anticipating it. Rhian rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:53:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <7029551b.3487992d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, AnnyMiddon wrote: > In a message dated 97-12-02 23:41:36 EST, rstoler@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU > writes: > > > >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 > > I didn't mean to imply that your definition was limited; I think it's as > accurate as any concise definition can be. > > I meant it more as a general question: Alternative History stories are > considered science fiction, instead of fantasy. Why is this so? > > Anny > AnnyMiddon@aol.com > Perhaps alternate history is considered science fiction for either of two reasons: 1) in much alternate history, beyond the basic assumption that an alternative is possible, there is little that is specifically fantastic, ie. no magic or 2) because modern physics implies, some scientists might say requires, that alternate universes do exist. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:26:09 -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: Hard to Find Feminist SF in print In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Just received a copy of the Spring 98 catalog of the Feminist Press at the City University of New York. It includes a number of otherwise hard to find Feminist SF and fantasy works, including Naomi Mitchison's Solution Three; Katharine Burdekin's Swastika Night, Proud Man, and her never before published sf novel The End of this Day's Business; as well as Jessica Amanda Salmonson's feminist supernatural anthology What Did Miss Darrington See?; Gilman's The Yellow Wall-Paper, plus Gilman's previously unpublished mystery novel, Unpunished, and a case book to be used with "The Yellow Wall-Paper" called The Captive Imagination, edited by Catherine Golden. The catalog, which needless to say, has all sorts of other wonderful and worthwhile stuff in it, can be ordered from The Feminist Press at the City University of New York Wingate Hall, City College/CUNY Convent Avenue at 138 Street New York, NY 10031 alternately, I can supply anyone interested with the specific prices, ISBN numbers, etc. to place an order. Mike Levy Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:45:18 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Becca Stoler Subject: Alternative histories MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >In a message dated 97-12-02 23:41:36 EST, rstoler@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU >writes: > >> >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 > >I didn't mean to imply that your definition was limited; I think it's as >accurate as any concise definition can be. > >I meant it more as a general question: Alternative History stories are >considered science fiction, instead of fantasy. Why is this so? > >Anny >AnnyMiddon@aol.com > I think that it actually makes them more "acceptable" to the general public. People are afraid of reading fantasy, "only children read fantasy". Science fiction can actually be read by adults. Just my opinion Becca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:15:33 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peter Buckland Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi In-Reply-To: <7029551b.3487992d@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:03:23 EST AnnyMiddon wrote: > I meant it more as a general question: Alternative History stories are > considered science fiction, instead of fantasy. Why is this so? > > Anny > AnnyMiddon@aol.com I suspect that this is because alternate histories are concerned with time lines (science) rather than realities (fantasies). It is very easy to create a new history by changing a single event. Example: the Red Dwarf episode in which the assassination of JFK was accidently prevented. Lister's craving for curry changed the world so horrifically that Kennedy agreed to be the man on the grassy knoll. (It's the only theory I've run accross that I can not find any holes in.) Example: The Difference Engine by William Gibson and, uh, um... somebody else. Babbage's calculating machine was completed, as a result of which we had a steam driven IT revolution in the late 19th century. Conversely, it is very difficult to change history by changing a single event using fantasy elements. Sure, you can drop a dragon on an Austrian cottage, but who cares. Apart, that is, from the Burghermeister, who was waiting for Old Granny Hildegarde to knock up some more dried frog pills. You see, the world in which the dragon grew up must, by the very nature of the dragon, be a different world to ours, and therefore it is not our history that you have changed. The only way I can see to introduce fantasy to our earth and have it affect history might go something like this: A meteor lands in a remote area, causing much destruction and poluting the water table. The genetic damage caused by the pollutant eventually breeds true, so that New Zealand is now populated by sentient, ambulatory plants, talking frogs and spell casting shape-shifters. Introduce them to history when and how you will. It may still be called Science Fiction, though, because the fantastic creatures were the result of well established scientific principles. Sorry, I'm wittering, aren't I. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Today's subliminal thought is: ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:43:00 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Alternative histories There are a number of books by 'serious' historians exploring what might have happened 'if....'. The contingency of particular historical events/phenomena is one which historians have to be aware of, so imagining 'alternative histories' bears the same relation to real history as extrapolative science fiction to 'real science'. I.e. they both have some connection to the demands of an intellectual discipline with rules of procedure, standards of evidence, and criteria by which to judge plausibility. This is clearly different from fantasy: few fantasy writers use history as anything more than decoration (though there are some superb exceptions--e.g. Barbara Hambly's Gil in the Darwath sequence is in fact a medieval historian and uses her knowledged of the role of economics, climate, physical geography etc on what happens to societies to elucidate what's going on). Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:56:29 -1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cindy Smith Subject: Re: Hard to Find Feminist SF in print Naomi's Mitchison's SOLUTION THREE: Is this a novel or a short story? Also, is this the same author who wrote "Mary and Joe" in Harry Harrison's anthology, NOVA 1 in 1970, which I believe may be a Christmas story? If anyone has read either of these stories, can you give me the basic plots? Thanks. SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // CARPENTER _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< \\ _\\\_ _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< // /// \\\ \\ Cindy Smith \\\ \\ _///_ // _///_ // _///_ // cms@dragon.com <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Delay not your conversion Woe to craven hearts and drooping hands, to the LORD, to the sinner who treads a double path! put it not off Woe to the faint of heart who trust not, from day to day who therefore will have no shelter! Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Woe to you who have lost hope! what will you do at the visitation of the LORD? Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 2:12-14 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 16:58:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: genres, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It really is scary how many people have this attitude, isn't it? A couple of months ago at a meeting I sat across the table from our state's Chief Information Officer. One of his staff members who's a friend of mine introduced us and told him I wrote (she was just making conversation until the meeting got underway, not trying to sell the man a copy of something). His response? "I don't have time to read books!" He said this very proudly, as if it meant his life obviously was much more productive than mine...oh, I'm glad I work for a person who reads. Nina Osier AnnyMiddon wrote: > In a message dated 97-12-04 15:43:44 EST, nschaadt@TXCC.NET writes: > > > Would it be overstating the obvious to say that it takes less time > to watch > > a film than to read a book? Perhaps the popularity of such texts > > (including magazines--which reproduce faster than rabbits) is fed > by time > > constraints. > > Time constraints seem to be the popular explanation. I've been told > numerous > times, "You read books? Gosh, I wish I had the time to read a book." > > But it sometimes seems that the people who say this have pride in > their > voices. It's as if they are saying that they are too busy with > meaningful > activities to do something frivolous like read. > > I believe that people generally find the time to do what they want to > do. I > read books, but I don't watch much TV, and I very rarely watch TV > sports. > Plenty of people in the US spend five or six hours on Sunday watching > (American) football. Even a fairly slow reader can read half of a > good-sized > novel in that time. > > Anny > AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:25:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: The Jeli's Subject: Re: SF/Sci-Fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >It may still be called Science Fiction, though, because >the fantastic creatures were the result of well established scientific >principles. This is why I considered Anne McCaffery's Pern series fantasy until the later books, when the Pern colony's history and origins had been uncovered. Afterwards it became science fiction to me and everything fell into place. I find I enjoy fantasy much more if there is a solid foundation that the "magic" is based on. Cami ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ utaar@cnnw.net http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/7115 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "What we call human nature in actuality is human habit" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:22:20 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: The Jeli's Subject: Re: Eon (was Nirvana) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >What do you think about this book "Eon" by Greg Bear? i've read it few >months ago, i think it's interesting because it's hard science book, but >the first character is a scientific female and also the writer is a male! >i'm intererested to have female point of view on it. I read _Eon_ about a year or so ago. I liked it alright, but the science almost got in the way of the story, for me anyway (my husband really liked it). A lot of hard science fiction I may not completely understand the science behind, but I can read it and not get stuck wondering, "How on earth would that work? What the heck is the author talking about?" _Eon_ was really hard for me to read when Bear started getting into the futuristic technology--I just couldn't get my mind around it, and it was really distracting. It's been a while since I read the book, but I didn't gain any lasting impression of Patricia (the female scientist). I hate to say this, but few of the female scientist characters in books I've read have been memorable. The only one I really had any empathy for was the woman from _To Save the Sun_ (and of course wouldn't you know I can't remember her name). Cami ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ utaar@cnnw.net http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/7115 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "What we call human nature in actuality is human habit" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 21:47:52 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Hard to Find Feminist SF in print There was some discussion of Naomi Mitchison a few months ago on the list: should be somewhere in the archives. Solution 3 is a novel. It is the same (very prolific in numerous genres, recently turned 100) author. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Cindy Smith Sent: 06 December 1997 04:56 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Hard to Find Feminist SF in print Naomi's Mitchison's SOLUTION THREE: Is this a novel or a short story? Also, is this the same author who wrote "Mary and Joe" in Harry Harrison's anthology, NOVA 1 in 1970, which I believe may be a Christmas story? If anyone has read either of these stories, can you give me the basic plots? Thanks. SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // CARPENTER _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< \\ _\\\_ _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ >IXOYE=('> <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< // /// \\\ \\ Cindy Smith \\\ \\ _///_ // _///_ // _///_ // cms@dragon.com <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia Delay not your conversion Woe to craven hearts and drooping hands, to the LORD, to the sinner who treads a double path! put it not off Woe to the faint of heart who trust not, from day to day who therefore will have no shelter! Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8 Woe to you who have lost hope! what will you do at the visitation of the LORD? Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 2:12-14 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 03:04:49 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: No need to make it personal In-Reply-To: Le Anne Fossmeyer 's message of Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:46:11 -0800 * Le Anne Fossmeyer > Gosh, I tried not to offend those who liked the movie. I gave > everyone the benefit of the doubt by stating that I might I have > seen a different version of the flick (San Diego, where I live, > gets to be a test market for everything from movies to new > fast-food items). I even went out of my way in another posting to > admit my perception may have been biased by my environment. While > I insulted the movie (and I wasn't the only one), I tried very > hard NOT to insult those who found something worthwhile in it. While movies cannot be insulted, you are the only one who insulted those who liked Strange Days, by stating that one cannot be intelligent and like the movie. And now you are saying that it was not intended as an insult. Well, that's nice, but if you really want to avoid insulting people, then I suggest that you don't tell them that they can't be intelligent and like what they do. That's precisely the kind of statement that any recipient would find offensive, and more: it also appears to be intended to be offensive. And the tone and content of the rest of your posting(s) seemed to embellish such an intent, imparting derogatory stuff like 'we all laughed of the godawful movie', 'it must be another version' (though only one version exists) etc. etc. And that ends my involvement in this sub-thread. Have the last word if you like. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:46:45 -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: Alternative histories In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Lesley Hall wrote: > anything more than decoration (though there are some superb exceptions--e.g. > Barbara Hambly's Gil in the Darwath sequence is in fact a medieval historian > and uses her knowledged of the role of economics, climate, physical geography > etc on what happens to societies to elucidate what's going on). > Lesley > Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > Judith Tarr and Susan Schwartz are two more fantasy writers with advanced degrees in history. Tarr's PhD is in medieval history. Schwartz's degree, I think, is in Byzantine history. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:04:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lorry B. Bond" Subject: Re: genres, etc. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, yes, (IMHO) I think media does reflect culture and vice versa. Nor do I think it is any accident that this is so. Lorry At 11:13 AM 12/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue >against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I >think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that >people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, >television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite >right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure >fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and >fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen >in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such >as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular >fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? > >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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:21:22 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lorry B. Bond" Subject: Re: genres, etc. In-Reply-To: <0468301420305c7UPIMSSMTPUSR03@email.msn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just a thought -- For any of you who think the written word is no longer a reflection of popular culture, exactly how much time have you spent reading the postings on this list???? BIG Lorry At 10:45 PM 12/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >If I am understanding this correctly, your fellow student was saying that >the written word is no longer a reflection of popular culture because people >have abandoned it for other media such as film and tv. I agree with you >that he is mistaken. I do not have any statistics on whether more people >are reading now than they were a few decades ago, but it seems like fiction >has evolved so that it is more omnipresent than ever before and both >reflects and influences other cultural media. > >As you said, fiction is closely tied to these other media, such as movies >based on novels and novels based on television series. Sometimes they are a >little too closely tied--like books whose original covers have been replaced >by the ad for the movie (which I have a personal dislike for). > >-----Original Message----- >From: Erik Tsao >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 11:25 AM >Subject: [*FSFFU*] genres, etc. > > >>Last night I wsa talking with a fellow graduate student who wanted to argue >>against the idea that popular fiction is a part of popular culture. I >>think I understand what he meant. Which was something like the fact that >>people are more likely to consume pop cultural texts like film, music, >>television, etc. than to read popular fiction. That doesn't seem quite >>right considering the immense popularity of romance novels, adventure >>fiction, and mysteries, not to forget mentioning science fiction and >>fantasy. Not only that but there is a very clear connection, as we've seen >>in some of the discussions on this list, that popular genres of film (such >>as romance, mystery, adventure, etc.) are very much connected with popular >>fiction. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? >> >>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: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:13:18 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Alternative histories Mike Levy wrote Schwartz's degree, I think, is in Byzantine history. I believe so: but I found her trilogy beginning with 'Byzantium's Crown' rather weird in its extrapolations. If Antony and Cleopatra had won the battle of Actium (which I think was the premise) there didn't seem to me to be any logical reason for the rise of Byzantium as an imperial capital in the first place, with a Romano-Egyptian Empire running along a Rome-Alexandria axis. Plus, while I can see that Christianity, in this alternative universe, would probably not have become a state religion, as far as I can remember (it is some years since I read the books) it (and possibly Judaism as well?) were totally absent. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:53:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, off-topic) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:21 AM 12/6/97 -0600, you wrote: >Just a thought -- For any of you who think the written word is no longer a >reflection of popular culture, exactly how much time have you spent reading >the postings on this list???? BIG > >Lorry > Huh. I'd never considered this. You think this list is part of popular culture?? I know computers are becoming more and more a normal accoutrement of the white yuppie US household--but, popular? Which brings up a thorny point -- and one that's probably completely off list-topic, but... how are you/y'all defining 'popular'? Because that was one of the components for my beef about SF being called popular, as in 'loved by the people', the (crowded, huddling) masses. If fewer than 2% of the population read more than 1 book per year... how can any reading activity be called 'popular'??? On the other hand, maybe I'm too influenced by Marxism in my conception of what "the people" is. In the US, the majority of the population seems to fall in the middle class range. And it is quite likely that the 2% of readers come primarily from middle class & upper class. But. Fanzines are bought by fen, not the general population. SF stories no longer appear in serialized form in newspapers or magazines as at the turn of the century--though I guess they still do appear in Playboy? (dunno, haven't been keeping up with that one). Comics, on the other hand, can clearly be called 'popular,' as well as cartoons--especially those involving superheros. I would argue that superhero comics belong to the SF category in that they are "science fantasy," that is, their internal world structure is highly coherent and cognitive in the Suvinian sense of Western scientific cause-and-effect logical thinking. Every time SpiderMan climbs a wall, he sticks on it, unless some logical event makes him fall. On the other hand, even though the originating novum--SpiderMan fell into a vat of superjuice uhm, ok, so I don't know the genesis of SpiderMan, but it was some kind of Frankensteinish birthing event--is often scientific, the 'magical' powers these super-heroes thereafter possess are fantastical. But getting back to the 'popular' issue: perhaps comics have such popular appeal partly because there is so little to read. The only written form of SF that I can think of that *might* be "popular" among the 2% of readers are the Trekkie spinoffs, and maybe Arthurian Romance/Fantasy and some other Fantasy worlds that are sequellized. So, why call SF--as a genre--'popular'? Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:01:29 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: More on Margaret Cavendish or rather, her family. Article in the latest Women's History Review on her sister's plays (written for family performance) and the general literary culture of the family. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 18:12:19 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heather MacLean wrote: > > Huh. I'd never considered this. You think this list is part of popular > culture?? I know computers are becoming more and more a normal accoutrement > of the white yuppie US household--but, popular? > > Which brings up a thorny point -- and one that's probably completely off > list-topic, but... how are you/y'all defining 'popular'? If I were defining popular, in the context of popular culture, it would be in opposition to "high" culture. That is, cultural pursuits - such as, but not confined to, reading science fiction - which people find pleasurable for their own reasons, rather than because they have been sanctioned by the elite of their society who have the power to define what "high" culture is, eg canonical literature, classical music, etc. > is quite likely that the 2% of readers come primarily from middle class & > upper class. This seems to be, IMHO, a sweeping, not to say patronizing assumption > unless some logical event makes him fall. On the other hand, even though > the originating novum--SpiderMan fell into a vat of superjuice uhm, Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, or so I read.... > So, why call SF--as a genre--'popular'? For the reason given above, it is a genre which has been created as a collaboration between writers and readers and has continued to thrive despite being ignored or even rubbished by the cultural elite. In my definition - which I venture to suggest is shared by many others - "popular" is not a statistical measure. Joan Haran ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:07:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:12 PM 12/6/97 -0000, Joan Haran wrote: >> is quite likely that the 2% of readers come primarily from middle class & >> upper class. > >This seems to be, IMHO, a sweeping, not to say patronizing assumption > Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing in the slightest--I just thought that one of the very components of lower class status was being less educated and hence, having a lower reading level. And in general, any statement having to do with class is also, by definition, going to be a sweeping generalization. Sometimes those are simply useful for sorting initial parameters to a discussion. Heather hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:02:28 -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: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heather MacLean wrote: > Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing in the slightest--I just thought > that > one of the very components of lower class status was being less > educated and > hence, having a lower reading level. Actually, I think we have to separate class and quality of education. I come from Detroit, where the vast majority of the public schools are hard-pressed for funds, and the educational levels of the children show that fact. However, even in the "rich" suburbs to the north of us, I see a lack of quality education, leading to a good deal of very reading-ignorant, upper-class students. The quality of various schools inside the city (the University of Detroit HS, Renaissance HS, Cass Tech HS, among others) shows that, while a sizable proportion of their students are lower-middle class and below, they are still very attuned to reading. Also (and I can't compare to other large urban areas, so I'm not sure whether this is unique), we have a good deal of used bookstores and a fairly strong public library system in the metro area, so books are available for decent prices, too. Just my 2 cents... :) - Geoffrey -- "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/8499 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:01:52 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Whipple Subject: Re: more on films - antonia's line In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I also really loved this movie, and also witnessed a gender split in others' responses to it. The women I saw it with also thought it was wonderful. OK, I know this is a very small sample, but the one man I talked to about it was less thrilled. I was particularly intrigued when he said he found the violence in it disturbing, that it was too real. One of the things that makes the movie great in my eyes is the way it shows bad things happening to good people, and those people suffering, recovering, and moving on with their lives. And of course the magical realism, particularly towards the end, also left me with a positive, hopeful sense of the cycle of life, while the man I talked to found the ending depressing. Go figure. Go rent the movie. *************** ******************** Heather Whipple Humanities Librarian hwhipple@script.lib.indiana.edu Swarthmore College ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:01:28 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: genres, etc. Comments: cc: YUMC18A@prodigy.com, editor@theromancereader.com, dstover@clsp.uswest.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lorry B. Bond wrote: > > Just a thought -- For any of you who think the written word is no longer a > reflection of popular culture, exactly how much time have you spent reading > the postings on this list???? BIG Lorry, hah! Good point. Even with all the graphics on the web, it is still primarily a textual media. And if the web doesn't reflect popular culture, I don't know what does! I recently found some good essays about feminism and the genre of romance, with comments by feminists, romance writers, and romance readers (I even chimed in with my two cents). It's says a lot about popular culture. It's also fascinating to read. Example about cover art: apparently some romance authors feel the same way about the hunk-and-heroine-in-an-anatomically-impossible-clinch as some science fiction authors feel about the babe-in-a-bronze-bra-being-carried-off-by-a-bugged-eyed-monster. If anyone would like to take a look, check out: http://www.sff.net/people/DebStover/clinch.htm, for a discussion of what romance author Deb Stover thinks about those clinch covers. http://www.likesbooks.com/covrtopc.html, for comments by romance author Stef Ann Holm's on how the marketing of her books and the covers have changed over the years. (reprinted from TheRomanceReader at http://www.theromancereader.com/; see below for details about the site). For more on covers, see http://www.likesbooks.com/covers.html http://www.likesbooks.com/mussell.html, for an interview with Kay Mussell of the American University on feminism and romance, given by webmaster Laurie Gold. http://www.likesbooks.com/mussell2.html, for comments by romance readers about romance and feminism. http://www.likesbooks.com/quick16.html, for the view from a science fiction author (yeah, me ). http://www.likesbooks.com/beam.html, for an article on romance and feminism written by Alex Beam that appeared in the =Boston Globe.= There are excellent discussions in the site TheRomanceReader, in addition to the Stef Ann Holm article. Right now they are updating their site, but if readers are interested I can post addresses when they come back online. It's top-notch. Best --Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:31:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971206141957.682f06a4@pop.kent.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Heather MacLean wrote: > > > Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing in the slightest--I just thought that > one of the very components of lower class status was being less educated and > hence, having a lower reading level. Nonsequiter alert! Being less educated and having a lower reading level do not, in these times, have that much relationship to each other. A lot of readers are either self-taught or taught by a relative, friend, etc before they see the inside of a school. And on an SF list )fprget which one!) we went round and round about reading - and hiding our novels behind Dick & Jane - while Teach was plowing thru Dick & Jane. And there are PhD physicists who boast of haveing never cracked a book that didn't have mathematical tables in them. Nor does a lower class origin mean either a lesser educational level OR a lesser reading level. Ask any old time Socialist who is still out there in the neighborhoods organizing. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm..edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:38:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:31 PM 12/6/97 -0800, Patricia (Pat) Mathews wrote: > Nor does a lower class origin mean either a lesser educational >level OR a lesser reading level. Ask any old time Socialist who is still >out there in the neighborhoods organizing. > Ok, guess I was wrong then. I apologize. Should have known better than to rely on information acquired during my training in teaching... *wry laugh* Heather =) hmaclean@kent.edu http://www.personal.kent.edu/~hmaclean ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:00:22 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > Being less educated and having a lower reading > level do not, in these times, have that much relationship to each other. I have been saddened by the number of readers of my book Catch the Lightning that have expressed incredulity that a seventeen year old Latina girl without much education could be that intelligent or articulate. They should have met some of the kids I knew when I was growing up. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:26:48 -0000 Reply-To: joanharan@dial.pipex.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joan Haran Subject: Re: genres, etc (+ popular culture on/off (?) topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heather wrote: > Sorry, didn't mean to be patronizing in the slightest--one of the very > components of lower class status is being less educated and hence, having a > lower reading level. I still think, however, that this is a problematic assertion - I am an ex-pat Scot, and a significant feature of Scottish working-class culture is auto-didacticism and life-long learning, using public resources such as lending libraries - your statement has to be very clearly located geographically and historically Joan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:30:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Nina M. Osier" Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) Comments: To: asaro@SFF.NET MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, they should have met my grandfather. His formal education ended after Grade 8, on a Maine island in those days if your father died you went to work! However, he read all his life--I remember him getting up at 4 a.m. so he could have two hours of quiet with his books--and when his youngest child went to college, he read every one of her textbooks. So much for assumptions, they just don't work very well when applied to human beings. Nina Osier Catherine Asaro wrote: > Pat wrote: > > > Being less educated and having a lower reading > > level do not, in these times, have that much relationship to each > other. > > I have been saddened by the number of readers of my book Catch the > Lightning that have expressed incredulity that a seventeen year old > Latina girl without much education could be that intelligent or > articulate. They should have met some of the kids I knew when I was > growing up. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:25:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: silk Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nina wrote: >So much for assumptions, they just don't work very well when applied to human beings.< And I'll second that completely. In the light of this particular strand, I just want to add that in addition to teaching SF at my university, I also teach in the Academic Skills Centre. There's no correlation that I can see between literacy and class. There is, however, a correlation between literacy and growing up in a family that loves books. My own family is largely working class (I'm the only one who has ever been to university, let alone to graduate school), but my parents, my grandparents, and most of my other relatives read far more than they watch TV. It may even have helped that, being relatively poor, we didn't have as much access to high-tech entertainments as more middle class families did. The library, after all, is free. And just to flog this horse a little farther, I'd like to add that one of the most elegant writers I have ever met was a 70 year old farm hand with a grade 3 education. Wendy ******************************** Wendy Pearson Email: wpearson@trentu.ca; silk@pipcom.com Cultural Studies Phone: (705) 745-0637 Trent University Peterborough Mailing Address: Box 228, Trail College Ontario K9J 7B8 Trent University, Peterborough, Ont. K9J 7B8 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 10:27:21 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Alternative histories In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > > Judith Tarr and Susan Schwartz are two more fantasy writers with advanced > degrees in history. Tarr's PhD is in medieval history. Schwartz's > degree, I think, is in Byzantine history. > > Mike Levy > I am not sure if I missed part of this thread, but just to mention that Katherine Kurtz (author of the Deryni pseudo-medieval fantasies) has a graduate degree in medieval history; and Harry Turtledove, writer of fantasies and science fiction, has a PhD in Byzantine history, and has translated the Chronicle of Theophanes. There must be more! Well, there's "John Holm", collaborator with Harry Harrison on several historical fantasies, and author of some science fiction too, who is really Tom Shippey, who formerly held Tolkin's Chair of Old English at Leeds University (UK) and is now a senior professor of medieval English at St Louis, Missouri. And a well-known critic of science fiction and fantasy too. I'm a medieval historian too, but since I haven't written fiction, I don't count... Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 04:58:36 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mark Smith Subject: Honor Harrington series Content-Type: text/plain There were a couple of places in the 1st book, "On Basilisk Station," where David Weber seemed to want to try to use pronouns and honorifics in nontraditional ways, but later on this effort was abandoned and all men were he, all women were she, and titles such as Lord and Lady were gender-specific. But in the 6th book, "Honor Among Enemies," a woman is referred to as a "First Lord of the Admiralty." Are there any traditionalists on the list who think this should have been, "First Lady of the Admiralty?" --Mark Nontraditional News ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:59:48 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peter Buckland Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971206165134.444f0470@pop.kent.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:38:39 -0500 Heather MacLean wrote: > > Nor does a lower class origin mean either a lesser educational > >level OR a lesser reading level. Ask any old time Socialist who is still > >out there in the neighborhoods organizing. > > > > Ok, guess I was wrong then. I apologize. Should have known better than to > rely on information acquired during my training in teaching... *wry laugh* > > Heather > =) Silly person, of _course_ you should have known better. The main source for the disinformation of children is teachers. And how, boys and girls, do teachers learn to disinform? That's right, Jonny. Teacher training college. I only trusted two of my teachers. The first taught maths, and was probably certifiable. The second discussed history. Yes, _discussed_. Somebody actually wanted to know what we thought, not just what we had been taught. I left school soon after, aged 15, in part because it was interfering with my education. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C mean? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:07:28 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peter Buckland Subject: Re: Honor Harrington series In-Reply-To: <19971207125836.17020.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 04:58:36 PST Mark Smith wrote: > There were a couple of places in the 1st book, "On Basilisk Station," > where David Weber seemed to want to try to use pronouns and honorifics > in nontraditional ways, but later on this effort was abandoned and all > men were he, all women were she, and titles such as Lord and Lady were > gender-specific. But in the 6th book, "Honor Among Enemies," a woman is > referred to as a "First Lord of the Admiralty." Are there any > traditionalists on the list who think this should have been, "First Lady > of the Admiralty?" "First Lord of the Admiralty" is correct. First Lord is not a title, but a post. "First Lady of the Admiralty" would, I think, be descriptive of the first woman to hold the post. Personally, I have never had a problem with gender-specified titles and posts. I couldn't care less what sex the chairman is, so long as the chairman does a good job of running the company. Of course, a woman is less likely to screw up as chairman because she has probably had to prove herself much more than her male rivals. Makes me wonder, though. What will people call the husband of the first female US president. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel APATHY ERROR: Don't bother striking any key. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:06:56 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peter Buckland Subject: Re: genres, etc. (+ popular culture, back on-topic) In-Reply-To: <3489BCE6.5372@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:00:22 -0400 Catherine Asaro wrote: > I have been saddened by the number of readers of my book Catch the > Lightning that have expressed incredulity that a seventeen year old > Latina girl without much education could be that intelligent or > articulate. They should have met some of the kids I knew when I was > growing up. > Haven't read it, but I know what you mean. Most of my friends are highly intelligent and articulate, but their backgrounds range from aristocracy to slum, and their education from PhD to dropout. Background does not seem to have much affect on intelligence, only on opportunities to utilise it. The most important factor, as far as I can determine, is motivation. One friend of mine, seriously dyslexic, was totally illiterate until somebody gave him Lord of the Rings for his fifteenth birthday. It took him a long time, but he is now a voracious reader, although the dyslexia does slow him down. S'funny, he seems to have a marked preference for fantasy. Can't think why. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Life is complex. You know - part real, part imaginary. Oops! I just discovered that I sent the above response to the originator instead of to the list. Profuse apologies go to Catherine for having to see this twice. I shall try to rember to check who I am posting to before hitting send. Perhaps I can no longer say: Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Madness takes its toll... please have exact change. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:27:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Honor Harrington series In-Reply-To: <19971207125836.17020.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Mark Smith wrote: > gender-specific. But in the 6th book, "Honor Among Enemies," a woman is > referred to as a "First Lord of the Admiralty." Are there any > traditionalists on the list who think this should have been, "First Lady > of the Admiralty?" > Not if there already was such a title for the wife of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That would lead to confusion. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:17:20 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: Honor Harrington series MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, I thought it was cool that a woman could be First Lord of the Admiralty. Since it's a job, and not an inherited title, I guess it didn't bother me too much. Also, in the 6th book, did you notice that one of the past Andermani emperors (died childless, and the succession goes in the male line) was succeeded by his sister who had herself legally declared a man to avert a war between her male cousins? Turned out to be one of the best "emperors" the Andermani have had. A rose is just a rose by any other name... later, Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:50:36 -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: genres, etc. In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971206082122.006b27f0@students.wisc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Lorry B. Bond wrote: > Just a thought -- For any of you who think the written word is no longer a > reflection of popular culture, exactly how much time have you spent reading > the postings on this list???? BIG > > Lorry If (or more likely, when) they come up with means of participating in on-line discussions by using a microphone instead of typing, don't you think it will affect the numbers of people still willing to type and read the messages? Marina