From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri May 22 09:17:51 1998 Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:13:36 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9712E" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:46:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rhian Merris Subject: XMASCARD.EXE - seems fine. was: RE: [*FSFFU*] ** URGENT ** #2 I run Norton Antivirus. I ran the xmascard executable that was posted here, and it seems quite harmless. It's a PC christmas card with sound. It may be loud, so take care if you're running it at work. :) Rhian Merris rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com ---------- From: owner-feministsf[SMTP:owner-feministsf@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] Sent: Thursday, December 25, 1997 9:56 AM To: FEMINISTSF Subject: [*FSFFU*] ** URGENT ** #2 - so if someone *has* checked it out - could you send a testimonial to the list about its alleged harmless or harmful impact? even if it seems harmless, by the way, i would be cautious before executing it. sorry y'all - an executable attachment was sent - i'm investigating it now. in the meantime do NOT run it until we check it out. DO NOT RUN XMASCARD1.EXE sent by Imran Qurishi At 04:47 pm 12/25/97 +0530, you wrote: > Merry Christmas to all of you!!! > >> > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:25:20 -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: XMASCARD.EXE - seems fine. was: RE: [*FSFFU*] ** URGENT ** #2 In-Reply-To: <34A7B8DA@msmailpc01.saic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII thank you. what a relief! sorry to be overcautious, but i get harassment periodically as a result of feminist-sf web pages, so i've been half-expecting it. On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Rhian Merris wrote: > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:46:00 EST > From: Rhian Merris > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] XMASCARD.EXE - seems fine. was: RE: [*FSFFU*] ** URGENT ** #2 > > I run Norton Antivirus. I ran the xmascard executable that was posted > here, and it seems quite harmless. It's a PC christmas card with sound. > It may be loud, so take care if you're running it at work. :) > > Rhian Merris > rhian.m.merris@cpmx.saic.com > > ---------- > From: owner-feministsf[SMTP:owner-feministsf@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 1997 9:56 AM > To: FEMINISTSF > Subject: [*FSFFU*] ** URGENT ** #2 > > - so if someone *has* checked it out - could you send a testimonial to > the > list about its alleged harmless or harmful impact? even if it seems > harmless, by the way, i would be cautious before executing it. > > sorry y'all - an executable attachment was sent - i'm investigating it > now. > in the meantime do NOT run it until we check it out. > > DO NOT RUN > > XMASCARD1.EXE sent by Imran Qurishi > > > At 04:47 pm 12/25/97 +0530, you wrote: > > Merry Christmas to all of you!!! > > > >> > > > 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 Summer 97: Another "eyewitness" recants her testimony against Mumia and cites police coercion as the reason for her perjury. http://www.calyx.com/~refuse/mumia/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:05:57 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenila Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Julian May Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi, I'm new to the list, so hello everyone. I've just finished reading Julian May's Pliocene Exile series and have read all her other series and I have a question. (I think I should also give a spoiler warning, please tell me if I am doing this right:) SPOILER At the end are we to assume that Marc and Elizabeth's attempt to bring the Tanu and Firvulags home worlds to coadunate status is what results in the race known as Lymliks (spelling?) . Also, I am just beginning Freeze Frames by Katherine Kerr, and have never read anything by her, any thoughts? I found Elizabeth's notion of spiritual growth through pain interesting, it reminded me of Dan Simmons last Hyperion novel SPOILER in which Athea (spelling?) allows herself to be tortured and subjected to tremendous pain to bring about the spiritual growth of others. BYE:) Jennifer jenila@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:49:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: STACEY48 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: authors Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit i'm new to the list and am interested in anything recent written by Jacqui Singleton, Chris Anne Wolfe, Diana Rivers, Karen Williams and other writers like that. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:18:41 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: The Moon and the Sun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I just finished reading this book, and did something I haven't done in quite some time: stayed up all night because I could not bear to put it down. It's wonderful! I remember some of the earlier comments about it falling through the genre boundaries--maybe critics don't read enough. The book cover bills it as "alternate history," which is good enough for me except that I don't generally like alternate histories (especially the ones based on the Great Man/Battle of History which take on the question of "what would happen if The Other Guy had won X war) which always struck me as "history lite." Those books don't spend enough time developing the historical context and causality which, as my historian friend says, is a lot more complicated and wide ranging than what guy won what battle. The novel is obviously a feminist view of "his"-story, and sf. I don't see it as fantasy because the sea people are not fantasy beings (I like a lot of the urban fantasy which postulates fantasy creatures living in modern day cities and so on, but this novel struck me as different from those works). I am amazed at the amount of historical research necessary to have written this--and impressed at the deftness of the "speculation" ("what if sea people existed?"), and the richess and depth of characterization throughout. It reminds me of the works of two other favorites novelists: Dorothy Dunnett and Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. The novel brings together feminism and science and history in fantastically readable ways, and makes me want to rush out and metaphorically beat other people over the head until they read it so I can talk more about. I especially liked how Marie-Josephe (*sorry if names are misspelled*) had to learn through a period of intense strain and during a time while she is suffering from the effects of repression that Odelette/Haleed and Sherzad are both "human" and have souls and deserving of their freedom--she struggles with this concept, and has lapses, and has to deal with all her cultural baggage. Definitely recommended! Robin talk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:31:30 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Separated by a common langage (Off) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is a report regarding the preferred language for European communications. I know it is WAY off topic, but I couldn't keep it to myself. With luck, it will catch on world-wide, making communication easier and more accessible for all. ====================================================== The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short). In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by z" and "w" by v. During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru. Trust me, I'm a doktr. Catweasel Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 10:45:23 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Separated by a common langage (Off) In-Reply-To: <199712300431.EAA04703@lions.cableinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Catweasel wrote: > > The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement > has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for > European communications, rather than German, which was the other > possibility. Won't the French be furious at that! > > As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded > that English spelling had some room for improvement and has > accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as > EuroEnglish (Euro for short). > Uh --- I remember reading this under the heading of Spelling Reform fifty years ago. It was funny even then. But for a truly international lagunage in my part of the world, try Spanglish. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:55:15 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: McIntyre's The Moon and the Sun MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > Hi Catherine, > > By the way, congratulations on the romantic sf award nomination! Thanks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. One reason I was so tickled with it is that I was warned (with much dire propshesy ) that It Couldn't Be Done, that is, it wasn't possible to mix hard science fiction with a feminine view point, particularly if it included a love story, because hard science fiction readers wouldn't tolerate the love story and romance readers wouldn't tolerate the hard sf. However, despite all the warnings, it seems to be doing well, perhaps even better than my first (which is soon to go into a reprinting), though it is too early to tell yet for certain. Personally, I think hard science fiction could do with more of the feminine viewpoint. > Thanks for the kind words. It's quite a comfort to hear from some folks who didn't > read Moon & Sun as science-v.-women's intuition, &c. I didn't read it that way at all! And I'm about as "hard" a scientist as there is (my doctorate it in theoretical atomic and molecular physics, which is quantum theory applied to the study of how atoms and molecules behave). MJ clearly has a scientific mind. She approaches her work with Yves with a dedication and insight that makes for a good role model for students of science. When I was a physics professor, I considered doing a class on science in science fiction. THE MOON AND THE SUN would have made a good choice because it shows a great deal about how science is done, both in terms of good technique and technique to avoid. > It wasn't at all uncommon for people to have the > constellation of abilities that Marie-Josephe > possesses (drawing, music, singing were all > staples of upper class education, such as it was), In fact, many mathematicians also play instruments, in particular the piano. In fact, some researchers apparently believe a correlation between musicality and mathematical ability. > so when I get hammered for giving her those > talents, plus the math and physics interest that > so often goes along with musical talent, I mostly > assume that the person who's hammering me knows > even less about history than I do (which is kind > of difficult!). After reading the book, I would say you know a lot about history! It's a hoot when people say "Oh, a woman can't do all that. Of course not." Hah hah. What am I, chopped liver? When I tell them I am a ballet dancer with a doctorate in quantum physics who plays piano, they quit hammering. I can't tell you how much a related to MJ. > The funny thing I found was that women were more > likely to be allowed to study science than they > were to be allowed to study the Classics, which > were considered far too powerful for delicate > feminine brains. Perhaps the subjectivity of the Classics is what makes women's take on it more controversial. In science and math, H(psi)=E(psi) no matter what you think about the portrayal of women in the discipline. Not so in the Classics. So I can see how it would be considered "more dangerous" to have women study it. They might (and do) challenge the prevailing modes of thought. Even now I am =amazed= at the depth of the hostility I get when I express my opinion that the so-called literary canon and the schools of thought involved with its interpretation are biased against women. S P O I L E R A L E R T > Chartres and Lotte are the children of Madame and > Monsieur (Louis' sister-in-law; and his brother). > I don't think there's any credible evidence that > Madame ever had a sexual relationship with anyone > other than her husband. I was curious about Monsier and Lorraine too. Was Lorraine truly bisexual, or just involved with Monsier because gave him power? > Louis' lovers (such as -- probably -- Monsieur's first wife, the vivacious, charming, > high-strung, and in my opinion anorectic Henriette d'Angleterre) were all beautiful. He certainly got around! One is tempted to think half of France are his progeny. (well, okay, maybe not =half.= ) > He became progressively more devout after he banished > Mme de Montespan, after the queen died, and after he > took up with (& probably married) Mme de Maintenon. One thing I was puzzled about. Why didn't the King make it clear he married Mme de Maintenon, if he did? Why let her put up with all the grief she took? If he didn't marry her, why wouldn't he, given that they lived together as husband and wife? Also I'm curious, why did Mme de Monterspan get banished? (I never knew all this historical stuff was so interesting ). > I took some pleasure in hinting or stating that most > of the main characters in the book, except Marie-Josephe, > had different parents than they (or the public) believed, > not excepting Monsieur and Louis himself. (I think the possibility > exists that Mazarin had something to do with their existence, > though I doubt that question can ever be answered.) Hey. Say more about Louis and Monsieur. I missed those refernces. Who is Mazarin again? Another point I was confused on was the shenanigans surrounding Lucien's parentage. What I got was that the previous queen was his mother and his acknowledged father was his biological father. His brother was the son of his acknowledged father's wife but actually had a different father. But someone else had a daughter who was also a dwarf, and at birth she was switched with Lucien, because otherwise Lucien threatened the throne due to his noble birth? And that other daughter had something to do with the King of Spain? I'm confused! > It's definitely a broad-spectrum antibiotic. Given the condition > of medicine at the time, it was the closest thing to an immortality > potion that anybody was likely to find. Cool. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:13:50 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Separated by a common langage (Off) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Catweasel wrote: > > Here is a report regarding the preferred language for European > communications. I know it is WAY off topic, but I couldn't keep it to > myself. With luck, it will catch on world-wide, making communication > easier and more accessible for all. LOL! Great. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:12:18 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: The Moon and the Sun MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > > I just finished reading this book, and did something I haven't done in quite > some time: stayed up all night because I could not bear to put it down. Same thing happened to me. > The novel obviously a feminist view of "his"-story, and sf. I've heard this mentioned a few times. It's funny, because it doesn't strike me as "feminist" per se, but simply a story told from a female point of view. The reason I hesitate at the word feminist here is not because the book doesn't illustrate the inequities women faced in the era; it does a good job of that, showing without telling. What bothers me is that the label suggests that the feminine point of view is "different." I don't know if I'm phrasing this well. Let me try an example. I would call Joan Slonczewski's "Door Into Ocean" feminist because it proposes a world that deals with questions being debated among feminists and explores the consequences of those questions in an experimental society. THE MOON AND THE SUN tells the story of someone on our own planet living in our own culture, dealing with the day to day problems a person of that time and position encounters. The only difference is that it is a young woman. So her concerns include those of a woman, eg, what happens when she has her period? In other words, if I read a story that follows the life of a young man, I don't consider it necessarily "masculinist" (whatever that might mean!). It's just a story. I suspect the answer to my own question is that it is feminist because the majority of our stories aren't told from a feminine point of view (except in the romance genre, though that is only one aspect of it). Perhaps we will know that equality is close when stories told from the female VP are no longer seen as feminist per se (or that all standby "fluff"), but just as good stories. > I am amazed at the amount of historical research necessary to have written this-- > and impressed at the deftness of the "speculation" ("what if sea people > existed?"), and the richess and depth of characterization throughout. Yes! My impression also. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 16:09:31 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Strong women bibliography MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol Shahriary wrote: > > While attempting to install a new hard drive, we managed to format our C: > yesterday. I'm trying to remember what was unrecoverable (I usually save > files to zip or floppies) and the one thing I remember was all the wonderful > messages from the list suggesting "strong women heroes" that I was saving. > Was anyone else compiling a list they could share with me? Carol, I've several novels that fit what you're describing, in particular PRIMARY INVERSION and THE LAST HAWK. If you would like to see sample chapters, they are at: http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ under the "FREE! Chapters from books" link. Best regards Catherine Asaro ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 06:49:13 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: The Moon and the Sun In-Reply-To: <199712292218.WAA29034@etsuodt.TAMU-Commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Robin, Thanks for the kind words. Vonda On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:18:41 GMT, Robin Reid wrote: >I just finished reading this book, ... 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, 31 Dec 1997 06:59:19 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: McIntyre's The Moon and the Sun (long & rambling reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Catherine, (I hope this isn't more about French history than you ever wanted to hear!) >From: Catherine Asaro >Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:55:15 -0400 > > >Thanks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. One reason I was so tickled >with it is that I was warned (with much dire propshesy ) that It >Couldn't Be Done, that is, it wasn't possible to mix hard science >fiction with a feminine view point, particularly if it included a love >story, because hard science fiction readers wouldn't tolerate the love >story and romance readers wouldn't tolerate the hard sf. However, They must have been looking at the sales figures for STARFARERS. All I can figure is, I wrote myself into the world's smallest marketing niche and couldn't figure any way out. >despite all the warnings, it seems to be doing well, perhaps even better >than my first (which is soon to go into a reprinting), though it is too >early to tell yet for certain. > That would be great -- the more real people in sf, the better. Congratulations on the reprint, too -- that's not all that common these days, either. >Personally, I think hard science fiction could do with more of the >feminine viewpoint. > >> Thanks for the kind words. It's quite a comfort to hear from some folks who didn't >> read Moon & Sun as science-v.-women's intuition, &c. > >I didn't read it that way at all! And I'm about as "hard" a scientist >as there is (my doctorate it in theoretical atomic and molecular >physics, which is quantum theory applied to the study of how atoms and >molecules behave). > >MJ clearly has a scientific mind. She approaches her work with Yves >with a dedication and insight that makes for a good role model for >students of science. When I was a physics professor, I considered doing >a class on science in science fiction. THE MOON AND THE SUN would have >made a good choice because it shows a great deal about how science is >done, both in terms of good technique and technique to avoid. > Thanks. I did a good bit of work on trying to get that right within the knowledge and procedures of the time. >> It wasn't at all uncommon for people to have the >> constellation of abilities that Marie-Josephe >> possesses (drawing, music, singing were all >> staples of upper class education, such as it was), > >In fact, many mathematicians also play instruments, in particular the >piano. In fact, some researchers apparently believe a correlation >between musicality and mathematical ability. > I always thought there was, though I'm not sure what information I base the assumption on. >> so when I get hammered for giving her those >> talents, plus the math and physics interest that >> so often goes along with musical talent, I mostly >> assume that the person who's hammering me knows >> even less about history than I do (which is kind >> of difficult!). > >After reading the book, I would say you know a lot about history! > I know a lot about the court of Louis XIV, at Versailles. In 1693. September. (It was quite different in, say, 1663.) Move any direction in time and space, and my knowledge curve falls precipitously. >It's a hoot when people say "Oh, a woman can't do all that. Of course >not." Hah hah. What am I, chopped liver? When I tell them I am a >ballet dancer with a doctorate in quantum physics who plays piano, they >quit hammering. > >I can't tell you how much a related to MJ. > It would be wonderful to watch people shut up like a box when you happened to mention, by the way, that... >> The funny thing I found was that women were more >> likely to be allowed to study science than they >> were to be allowed to study the Classics, which >> were considered far too powerful for delicate >> feminine brains. > >Perhaps the subjectivity of the Classics is what makes women's take on >it more controversial. In science and math, H(psi)=E(psi) no matter >what you think about the portrayal of women in the discipline. Not so >in the Classics. So I can see how it would be considered "more >dangerous" to have women study it. They might (and do) challenge the >prevailing modes of thought. Even now I am =amazed= at the depth of the >hostility I get when I express my opinion that the so-called literary >canon and the schools of thought involved with its interpretation are >biased against women. > I think that likely had something to do with it, inasmuch as there was any rational basis at all for preventing women from studying the Classics. But I think the real reason, stated or not, was that knowledge of the classics was a marker for the top of the hierarchy (especially in England). It could have been anything, and has been a lot of other things in other societies in other times. But there and then it was knowledge of the Classics. And if it was reserved for the top of the hierarchy, then you _obviously_ couldn't allow women to do it. It was against nature and God's will. >S >P >O >I >L >E >R > > > >A >L >E >R >T > >> Chartres and Lotte are the children of Madame and >> Monsieur (Louis' sister-in-law; and his brother). >> I don't think there's any credible evidence that >> Madame ever had a sexual relationship with anyone >> other than her husband. > >I was curious about Monsier and Lorraine too. Was Lorraine truly >bisexual, or just involved with Monsier because gave him power? > It's hard to tell about Lorraine. I think he was probably bisexual, but I think his sexuality took second place to (or was an instrument to advance) his ambition. He mostly used his looks and charm to get what he wanted, though it's kind of hard to figure out why he didn't (as far as I'm aware) consolidate his resources. But then it's kind of hard to trust the reporting on Lorraine and Monsieur. And it's a little difficult to find out information about Lorraine himself, past his involvement with Monsieur. One reference said he was illegitimate, another said he was a younger son of a noble family (the brother of Monsieur le Grand). For 300 years Monsieur has been dismissed; there's really only one sympathetic biography that I could find. (Obviously it convinced me; I became quite fond of the guy while I was writing the book.) Since homosexuality was punishable by death (namely by being burned at the stake), you can be sure there aren't a lot of sympathetic contemporary reports about either man. Lorraine and Monsieur were accused of all sorts of plots of greater or lesser ridiculousness; Lorraine was even banished a couple of times. (One lingering accusation was that they poisoned Monsieur's first wife, Henriette d'Angleterre; as I mentioned, I think she died of anorexia. But I could be wrong.) I think Lorraine was the great passion of Monsieur's life. >> Louis' lovers (such as -- probably -- Monsieur's first wife, the vivacious, charming, >> high-strung, and in my opinion anorectic Henriette d'Angleterre) were all beautiful. > >He certainly got around! One is tempted to think half of France are his >progeny. (well, okay, maybe not =half.= ) > Or maybe so. He _did_ get around. And he was horrible to the queen: he made her ride in the same coach as his mistresses. (He usually had one "official" mistress and a couple of others at the same time. The part of Moon & Sun where Lucien says Louis used to climb across the roof to visit chambermaids is apparently quite true.) >> He became progressively more devout after he banished >> Mme de Montespan, after the queen died, and after he >> took up with (& probably married) Mme de Maintenon. > >One thing I was puzzled about. Why didn't the King make it clear he >married Mme de Maintenon, if he did? Why let her put up with all the >grief she took? If he didn't marry her, why wouldn't he, given that >they lived together as husband and wife? Also I'm curious, why did Mme >de Monterspan get banished? (I never knew all this historical stuff was >so interesting ). > Louis, as far as I can tell, mostly didn't care whether he gave anybody grief. In fact he put a lot of effort into figuring out ways to give people subtle types of grief. (It distracted them from plotting against him.) There were serious dynastic objections to his marrying Mme de Maintenon. (It was one of the few things Monsieur ever stood up to Louis about.) For one thing, she had been born a commoner. (She bought the title Mme de Maintenon with money the king gave her.) Louis already had a legitimate heir and a flock of illegitimate children that he was promoting like crazy, at the urging of Mme de Maintenon (who was not their mother but in several instances their governess, really more of a surrogate mother). Mme de Maintenon was probably but not certainly past child-bearing; you can imagine how the members of the royal family viewed the idea of more offspring. It's tempting to say, "He wouldn't publicly acknowledge her because he knew that was the thing she most wanted" (not for the status but for the respectability), but that's probably too simple. Montespan got banished because she was accused of using black magic to keep Louis under her spell. The incident was called The Affair of the Poisons and there are a number of books about it. She was accused of giving him love potions and of trying to poison him. Of course poisoning him made no sense whatsoever since all her status and power and wealth derived directly from him. But the Affair of the Poisons was essentially a witch hunt, and witch hunts seldom make any sense whatsoever. >> I took some pleasure in hinting or stating that most >> of the main characters in the book, except Marie-Josephe, >> had different parents than they (or the public) believed, >> not excepting Monsieur and Louis himself. (I think the possibility >> exists that Mazarin had something to do with their existence, >> though I doubt that question can ever be answered.) > >Hey. Say more about Louis and Monsieur. I missed those refernces. Who >is Mazarin again? > There's just one quick place, when MJ and Lucien are on the roof and Lucien has just told her the convoluted story of his parentage, where MJ starts to say that Monsieur doesn't resemble... And Lucien tells her not to insult the late queen in his presence (by implying that Monsieur might not be legitimate). I'm not entirely sure he's speaking in irony there (given that he himself is the late queen's illegitimate son). Mazarin (long dead by the time of Moon & Sun) was Cardinal Richelieu's successor in terms of advising Anne of Austria, Louis XIII's queen and Louis XIV's mother, especially when Louis XIV was crowned but not yet of age. Apparently he was quite a tyrant. There's some speculation that he was Anne of Austria's lover, and possibly even her husband. Though he was a cardinal, he wasn't a priest (apparently you could get appointed cardinal without being a priest during those times, if you had the right strings to pull), so it wouldn't even have been breaking any vows for him to marry her. Anne was married to Louis XIII for a long time before they had any children -- by all reports Louis XIII wasn't interested in women -- so one can speculate that she might have taken matters into her own hands with somebody else. As soon as Mazarin died, Louis took over the reins of government himself (the time is usually referred to as his "personal reign") and never let anybody have the kind of influence over him as Mazarin did. (He also mostly chose advisers who were commoners, and very seldom allowed a member of the nobility to have any real influence. There were exceptions, though.) >Another point I was confused on was the shenanigans surrounding Lucien's >parentage. What I got was that the previous queen was his mother and >his acknowledged father was his biological father. His brother was the >son of his acknowledged father's wife but actually had a different >father. But someone else had a daughter who was also a dwarf, and at >birth she was switched with Lucien, because otherwise Lucien threatened >the throne due to his noble birth? And that other daughter had >something to do with the King of Spain? I'm confused! > Actually you have it perfectly right. Marie- Therese was the daughter of the King of Spain. Her retinue (possibly the only people who actually cared anything about her), when she came to France to marry Louis, included a number of dwarves. The queen is rumored, in our real history, to have borne a daughter to a member of her retinue, and the daughter was said to have been raised in a French convent. (I don't actually know whether the rumor was true, but it was related in quite matter of fact terms in several sources -- people would go to the convent to visit the daughter, &c.) The fact that she was actually the daughter of two Spaniards from the queen's retinue is why Lucien says that she _could_ go back to Spain and be one of the Spanish king's retinue, but why would she want to? All I added to the gossip of the time was the idea that Lucien was really the baby the queen had, and his father spirited him away to raise as his and his wife's own, and the cover-up was that the child of two of Marie-Therese's attendants was put in his place. (Why the consequences of all this -- the historical rumor, I mean -- were essentially benign is a question I never saw an answer to.) Because of Marie-Therese, Lucien could have had a claim on the Spanish throne (a pretty terrible fate considering the Spanish court, which sounded painfully stuffy, cruelly devout, stupid, and boring; in fact one of her grandchildren -- Philippe, duke d'Anjou -- became King of Spain a few years after the time of Moon & Sun); because of his father's heritage, Lucien could even have been a threat to the French throne. So he had to be spirited away and his true parentage kept secret. (Sorry for the length.) Best, Vonda 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, 31 Dec 1997 17:58:40 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Feminine/feminist point of view Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" "Catherine Asaro wrote: Re: The Moon and the Sun I've heard this mentioned a few times. It's funny, because it doesn't strike me as "feminist" per se, but simply a story told from a female point of view. The reason I hesitate at the word feminist here is not because the book doesn't illustrate the inequities women faced in the era; it does a good job of that, showing without telling. What bothers me is that the label suggests that the feminine point of view is "different."" One thing I've learned during my years of identifying as a feminist (which I now refer to as "the f-word it's dangerous to say in public) and doing feminist scholarship in literary studies (you bet that a lot of academic/literary criticism and theory is biased if not downright hostile to women, women writers, women readers, and women critics) is that there are many definitions of "feminist." That's why it's good to have a list to discuss them all. I've been told that I am not a feminist because X by one person; a month later I've been told I am a raving feminist dyke bitch because X by another person. Sometimes it's the same X! By X I simply mean an expressed position I have on an issue, or a specific way I have chosen to live my life. I consider _The Moon and the Sun_ to embody a feminist perspective rather than just a female point of view because the protagonist consciously questions her culture's views of "women" (the religious view that she should be silent and not study; the patriarchal view that she should marry or should devote her life to serving a male) and then makes a moral and ethical decision that is misunderstood or likely to be punished by most people around her. She also finds most of her emotional support for the majority of the novel from women: not only from women, but from women marginalized by her society (a "slave" and an "animal"). This usage is different than feminist in regard to the feminist utopias that set up cultures that embody how a specific writer thinks a better society should be, in terms of feminist principles. I think there are a number of novels these days that fall into this more expanded usage of feminist. I cannot regard the use of a female point of view character (or feminine) as equivalent to what I mean here. I think that there is still a difference between this novel and between the traditional romance novels that may have a female protagonist and point of view but which accept the cultural views and imperatives without attempting to subvert or question them in any way. Or between this novel and canonical novels which also have female point of view characters. Just as a women is not "naturally" a feminist, a female point of view character does not make a book or narrative "feminist." There are a fair number of "canonical" novels from the last century which have female protagonists but which are not only by male writers but which do not question ithe social beliefs about women in any way: _Anna Kareninna_ (spelling may be wrong) and _Madame Bovary_ are two I've studied. Lots of male writers have female protagonists and point of view characters but they are not feminist, nor are female characters by female writers necessarily feminist. _TMTS_ does strike me as a feminist novel. Robin r or have sex with men ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:07:43 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: McIntyre's The Moon and the Sun (long & rambling reply) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > Hi Catherine, > > (I hope this isn't more about French history than > you ever wanted to hear!) This stuff is fascinating! I never much liked history before, but this is great. Maybe if my teachers had taught it this way, I would have found it a lot more interesting. > They must have been looking at the sales figures > for STARFARERS. All I can figure is, I wrote > myself into the world's smallest marketing niche > and couldn't figure any way out. Is STARFARERS still available? It sounds like something I would enjoy. I think the web makes a big difference. My books are marketed as straight hard sf and I doubt ten years ago they could have found their cross-over audience, particularly given the hostility I encountered when I suggested we should try for both audiences (I =knew= the books could cross-over because of my own reading preferences). Now, with the web, word gets around and authors can have more of an effect in promoting the book. The cross-over has a sort of boomerang effect too, in that I've had fan mail from the husbands of romance readers who say, "My wife =told= me I would like this and she was right." > It would be wonderful to watch people shut up like > a box when you happened to mention, by the way, that... Once when I was a teaching fellow in graduate school, I was assigned to a quantum mechanics class for upper division undergraduates. The first day I went to the class and sat near the back. I tended to look younger than my age then and also dressed up more than many grad students (eg, I wore dresses). There were about sixty students in the class, with maybe three or four women. While the prof was introducing the course, two boys sitting behind me started to talk about me, saying things like "Do you think she'll last?" and "Naw, everyone knows girls can't do this." They seemed to be deliberately talking loud enough for me to overhear. When I turned around to look at them, they both smirked and started to laugh. Then the professor got around to the syllabus he had handed out. At the top of the page, next to his name and office hours, were listed the two teaching fellows, myself and another graduate student named Gil. The prof had Gil stand up while he introduced him. Then he said, "Catherine Asaro is our other teaching fellow," and motioned for me to stand up. Which I did. Behind me I heard an "Oh, shiiiiit." I have to admit, it was gratifying. > But I think the real reason, stated or not, was > that knowledge of the classics was a marker for > the top of the hierarchy (especially in England). > It could have been anything, and has been a lot of > other things in other societies in other times. > But there and then it was knowledge of the > Classics. And if it was reserved for the top of > the hierarchy, then you _obviously_ couldn't allow > women to do it. It was against nature and God's will. That makes sense. One of the European countries, I believe Italy, has a huge percentage of female mathematicians. In that country, being a mathematician is a low status job. > I think she died of anorexia. I wouldn't be surprised. I used to do counseling of dancers with eating disorders. Anorexia is often a reaction agains a controlling authority figure, an attempt by the person with anorexia to exert control over at least one facet of her life. It's been shown to occur in relationships where the husband, father, or male relative uses emotional manipulation to control his wife etc. Which sounds like it fits Louis to the letter. Many thanks for all the info on the court and the people! It's great stuff. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:53:23 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Feminine/feminist point of view MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > > One thing I've learned during my years of identifying as a feminist (which I > now refer to as "the f-word it's dangerous to say in public) and doing > feminist scholarship in literary studies (you bet that a lot of > academic/literary criticism and theory is biased if not downright hostile to > women, women writers, women readers, and women critics) is that there are > many definitions of "feminist." That is a good point. I once heard a student at the college where I was a professor express astonishment that a stay-at-home mom they knew considered herself a feminist. The student was floored both because a woman in that situation supported feminism and because she spoke openly about it. > I consider _The Moon and the Sun_ to embody a feminist perspective rather > than just a female point of view because the protagonist consciously > questions her culture's views of "women" (the religious view that she should > be silent and not study; the patriarchal view that she should marry or > should devote her life to serving a male) and then makes a moral and ethical > decision that is misunderstood or likely to be punished by most people > around her. She also finds most of her emotional support for the majority > of the novel from women: not only from women, but from women marginalized > by her society (a "slave" and an "animal"). I see your point. I doubt we would call a story about a man in that era questioning his role in society as the male equivalent of feminism ("political" is the best analogy I can think of). Consider Lucien's actions. He too makes decisions based on questioning the status quo of his life, much like Marie-Josepha, knowing full well what it will cost him. But I doubt most readers would describe the novel as "political," at least in that sense. In fact, I suspect many would admire Lucien for standing up to Louis. What he did was controversial =in the court of Louis= but not by modern standards. Unfortunately, the MJ story may still be viewed as controversial in our culture. > I think there are a number of novels these days that fall into this more > expanded usage of feminist. This intrigues me. It could explain why my novel CATCH THE LIGHTNING has been called feminist, which I didn't expect. My other two have obviously strong female characters; PRIMARY INVERSION is about a woman who has the equivalent rank of admiral and THE LAST HAWK is about role reversal (I reversed the roles in six different cultures and had a blast with it ). Both stories operate on the implicit assumption that it is normal for women to be in roles of authority and for men to respect them. Not only has it not (overtly) ruffled feathers, it has been acclaimed by some reviewers and readers. Surprisingly (to me at least) the book that engendered hostility is CATCH THE LIGHTNING, which is narrated by a seventeen year old Maya girl in a far more traditional role. No one blinked at the fact that women in the other two chose to have love relationships outside of marriage, but in CTL it incensed some readers, even though the two characters eventually married (which for science fiction is about as traditional as it gets). The fact that a girl from the barrio is intelligent and articulate, and eventually earns a number of advanced degrees, has also inspired not only disbelief, but in some cases actual anger. (Another reason I relate to Vonda's comment about being hammered for her portrayal of MJ). I'm not really sure I understand it. I was also told the viewpoint of a seventeen year old girl wouldn't interest readers (which has turned out to be false). I think this touches on something else, that is, that a viewpoint which rewards female preferences, traditional or otherwise, is viewed as challenging accepted literary norms. So writing "men's fiction" (which is what many people consider hard sf) from such a POV is seen by some as feminist regardless, perhaps even more so, if she is traditional. Implicit in all my stories is the assumption that a woman's take on life has value regardless of who she is. I never thought of that as controversial, but it seems that in some literary circles it is. > I cannot regard the use of a female point of view character (or feminine) as > equivalent to what I mean here. I think that there is still a difference > between this novel and between the traditional romance novels that may have > a female protagonist and point of view but which accept the cultural views > and imperatives without attempting to subvert or question them in any way. I have to disagree with you there. By their very nature, romance novels question the cultural view and imperatives in a =major= way. Romance loves female sexuality. It challenges so many assumptions about women, sex, and men that it would take an entire essay to discuss them. Had =Anna Karnina= been written with the mind set of a romance novel, not only would she have lived, she would have had a successful relationship with the younger man, that is, she would have been rewarded for her love. This flies in the face of the idea implicit in much of our canon that women's sexuality needs to be controlled or denied, and that female characters who break the "rules" must be punished for it. Many romance readers would never define themselves as feminist. Yet they read novels that challenge our entire history of attitudes about the sexual behavior of women, with the stories innocuously clothed in the garb of tradition. The establishment pooh-poohs "women's literature" as fluff, while the fluff goes on quietly breaking all the rules. I think it's a hoot. It says a lot that almost 50% of the books bought by the public are romance novels. There are a lot of readers like myself who, although we would appreciate a greater diversity of plot and story emphasis (and in some cases better writing), still find the books satisfying because reading them isn't like a slap in the face over the things we value. Fortunately, the writing is better now than it used to be. Ah, that ol' purple prose ... "Oh no!" cried Blossom. "Don't impale me with your isomorphic implement." Harry the Hunk blinked. "What?" "Well," Blossom said, "I figured that was better than 'your throbbing rod of mixed-metaphored manhood.'" > Or between this novel and canonical novels which also have female point of > view characters. Just as a women is not "naturally" a feminist, a female point of view > character does not make a book or narrative "feminist." I agree. I wouldn't define female POV as synonymous with feminine POV. By feminine, I mean a women's take on it rather than a male-identified take on women, whether written by a man or a woman. I think that is why the women in my other two books caused less hostility than the girl in CTL. Those other female characters are strong in ways associated with power in our culture. Not that I have any objection to the fact that they have proved popular characters. I'm delighted. I think it says a lot about the changes in recent years. I doubt a book like THE LAST HAWK would have even found a publisher a few decades ago. > There are a fair number of "canonical" novels from the last century which > have female protagonists but which are not only by male writers but which do > not question ithe social beliefs about women in any way: _Anna Kareninna_ > (spelling may be wrong) and _Madame Bovary_ are two I've studied. Yes! > Lots of male writers have female protagonists and point of view characters but they > are not feminist, nor are female characters by female writers necessarily feminist. I agree. Best regards Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:18:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Feminine/feminist point of view Comments: To: Catherine Asaro In-Reply-To: <34AABECB.33B3@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Catherine Asaro wrote: > > Surprisingly (to me at least) the book that engendered hostility is > CATCH THE LIGHTNING, which is narrated by a seventeen year old Maya girl > in a far more traditional role. No one blinked at the fact that women > in the other two chose to have love relationships outside of marriage, > but in CTL it incensed some readers, even though the two characters > eventually married (which for science fiction is about as traditional as > it gets). The fact that a girl from the barrio is intelligent and > articulate, and eventually earns a number of advanced degrees, has also > inspired not only disbelief, but in some cases actual anger. (Another > reason I relate to Vonda's comment about being hammered for her > portrayal of MJ). > > I'm not really sure I understand it. I can. Can you spell R-A-C-I-S-M? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:41:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cat Farrar Subject: Re: Feminine/feminist point of view Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You suggested racism. I agree that may be part of it. I wonder if the problem is even deeper? Is someone wants to be "on top", someone must be on the bottom. Maintaining hiearchy seems to be the more fundamental desire and how that's done isn't as important as that it is done. For example, it could be through age, skin color, wealth, education, sex, weight, sexual preference and on and on. Cat Farrar At 05:18 PM 12/31/97 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Catherine Asaro wrote: > >> >> Surprisingly (to me at least) the book that engendered hostility is >> CATCH THE LIGHTNING, which is narrated by a seventeen year old Maya girl >> in a far more traditional role. No one blinked at the fact that women >> in the other two chose to have love relationships outside of marriage, >> but in CTL it incensed some readers, even though the two characters >> eventually married (which for science fiction is about as traditional as >> it gets). The fact that a girl from the barrio is intelligent and >> articulate, and eventually earns a number of advanced degrees, has also >> inspired not only disbelief, but in some cases actual anger. (Another >> reason I relate to Vonda's comment about being hammered for her >> portrayal of MJ). >> >> I'm not really sure I understand it. > > I can. Can you spell R-A-C-I-S-M? > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews @unm.edu > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Between stimulus and response is the will to choose." ~Viktor Frankl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Gender is a lived ideology...that becomes EMBODIED because it is enforced." ~Martha McCaughey Real Knockouts - The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense