Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9801B" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:33:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Romance novels Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 00:31:19 EST, you write: << << BTW, I have noticed that the romances being published today don't seem very romantic compared to the books of my childhood! Divorce, violence, single motherhood, etc. all seem to play a much bigger role than in the traditional romance novel. Would anyone who is a fan of this genre care to comment? >> Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, Voyager, Drums of Autumn They're marketed as romance, but are historical fiction/fantasy (modern woman in 18th century Scotland/America). I'm not a fan, so I don't know what the standard is now: these books I stumbled into and indulged myself, as a guilty pleasure. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:23:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Linda Quinlan Subject: Re: feminism/humanism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:56 PM 1/7/98 GMT, you wrote: >"Catherine Asaro writes: I think feminism needs to include respect for the >feminine aspects of life that many women value. It doesn't mean everyone >who talks about >feminism has to agree (which would be boring and would probably make the >posts in this listserv dwindle to nothing ), anymore than all >physicists agree on theoretical descriptions of the universe. But just >as a scientist will (in the ideal) respect and consider various >theories, so feminists need to acknolwedge that many women prefer more >traditional relationships, not because they aren't empowered, or have >been conditioned to whatever, but because it is the most satisfying >situation =for them.=" > >I am interested in what you consider to be "feminine" aspects of life. The >traditional 'feminine' life that I rejected myself (without ever attacking >my friends who chose differently) was very limited: cook/clean/sew/raise >children/work inside home only in support of your man. I rejected this way >of life for several reasons: one, I saw my mother do this all while married >to an academic (so she had the academic requirements as well--i.e. social >ones), and what I saw was that she worked harder and longer than my father. >Then he dumped her for a graduate student seven years older than I was--my >mother, who worked fulltime to put my father through graduate school, got >$300 a month alimony and has been working ever since.. My father is retired >with an agreat salary, a second wife, and two teenagers (of course having >two teenagers when you're seventy might be horrible). > >I don't attack women who chose this way of life: I only question whether or >not they are wise to do so without any other means of supporting themselves >given today's divorce rate and the extent to which current laws (some >supported by feminists, but most put into the system by men) have cut down >on alimony and so on. My objection is to a system that gives women no other >choices. The feminist extremists who give women no other choice than to >work full-time are also a problem. > >Philosophically, I reject the notion that only women are interested in what >I consider to be the "feminine" aspects of life: I have a cousin who works >in the home taking care of the children while his wife works full time: she >makes more than he does, and he enjoys child care more than she does. I >think if my brother and his wife ever have children, he'll be the home >partner. What I call nurturing is not inherent in women alone, although our >society fosters that notion. I am in many ways NOT a nurturing person--I >don't much like children or even young people--that's why I'm teaching >college. I chose not to marry for a number of reasons, as did my housemate. >My housemate and I have to share "maintenance" tasks in the home--we often >wish we could employ Jeeves to do all that sort of thing. We both enjoy >cooking--because we like to eat. But we were both dedicated to an >academic/intellectual life from early on: she's a medieval historian >(wanted to be a medievalist from about age five), and I'm an English >professor (I wanted mostly to be a writer, but had to find a way of earning >a living). > >Some of my favorite SF/F novels show cultures in which the nurturing of >families and making of homes is not limited to women: Diane Duane's "Door" >novels, Melissa Michaels' SF (not necessarily in print these days, alas) >featuring a female Heinleinesque character who cannot stand children but has >several male friends who parent their own children without a female in the >house or ship, Lois McMaster Bujold. I think those raise extremely >interesting feminist ideas which have to do with gender as a whole. In some >ways our society is tremendously unfair to men, denying them access to those >HUMAN acativities deemed "feminine," just as women are denied access to >HUMAN activities deemed "masculine." > >I think at times the feminist critique of a social system which limits women >to one sphere of activity is misread as attacks on "traditional women." I >agree that sometimes "feminists" do attack "traditional women," and vice >versa. It's always easier to attack groups with less power! The >individuals who irritate me are the women who say "I'm NOT a feminist, BUT I >support..." then go on to list all sorts of >feminist principles and issues. > >Robin > >Robin, I agree. I think in today's society it is folly to rely on a man for financial support. My mother wasn't dumped for a younger woman, but worked in a factory for 25 years only to get less money than my father, a carpenter. In addition, she had to do all of the "feminine" household chores, like cook, clean and take care of the children. She was always worn out. So, even though she was earning money, working as hard as my father and taking care of the house, I decided that doing it all wasn't going to work either. My brother grew up to be a racist and a women hater and I felt angry and protective of my mother. I had two sons but shouldn't have. I respect your decision not to have children and to know what's right for you. In Alice Walker's book about female circumcism (sp) in Africa there is a quote in the beginning of the book and here I'm paraphrasing....The trees in the forest were talking and one day they saw this person coming into the forest with an axe. Some of the trees got nervous. Then one tree said to the other trees, don't worry, the ax handle is made out of wood. Axe handles is what I call women who attack other women and seem to be so male identified they can't get out of their own way or ours. Thanks for the stimulating email. Linda Quinlan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:36:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not interested in "assigned" reading after all? Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:23:57 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Re: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I'm just way behind. I tried to find "Ammonite" at the public library without success. I did find, and read (couldn't wait), Slow River. I thought I printed the post with the two suggestions but can't find it now. . .what was the other suggestion? I remember only that it sounded good. Lindy Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl -- "If I had my past life to do over again, I'd make all the same mistakes--only sooner." --Tallulah Bankhead http://www.dotgraph.com Resources associated with women, disabilities and writing. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:19:07 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cat Farrar wrote: > The show had importance for me because when were > working alongside men in space (science) and doing fairly technical jobs. Yes! That was a reason I liked it too. > The air time that women recieved was much less than the men. Yes again. That was a reason I got annoyed with it. I used to switch the storylines in my mind, ofr entertainment, making the women the captains and the fellows the handsome gentlemen they encountered during their adventures. > >Kirk's attitude toward his love interests was also progressive for the > >times. > > Can you site some examples regarding his progressive attitude? There was at that time a big thing about "never admitting weakness to a woman," where weakness was defined according to indications of trust, respect for character or profession, passion, or anything else that might indicate a man needed a woman, in either a professional or romantic sense. Kirk's character, for all its faults, didn't have a problem with that. (Most of the time. Not always. It depended on the episode). It's true of course that compared to modern day scenarios, the show is dated (though the idea of need=weakness does still exist today). But at the time, it was a surprise. I'm not saying that it was prevelant, though. Just that indications of it existed. As a child I noticed that and appreciated the contrast it made with the world around me. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:33:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl Sorry Sheryl. I don't know about everyone else but I have been swamped. I haven't found any information about _Mutagenesis_ but have read _Slow River_. So, I vote for _Slow River_ because I already read it and it's really good. Did we decide upon the location of the discussion as here by default? I was a bit confused about that. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:31:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Honor Wallace Subject: book group MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl I, for one, am still interested--but in my sheep-like manner am waiting for someone to organize it. Anyone out there with experience in this sort of thing who would like to volunteer? Honor ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:28:29 -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: Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? Cat Farrar At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > >Barbara R. Hume > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "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 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:45:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII how about some cherryh? i never have read her stuff and am looking for a place to start. On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Stahl, Sheryl wrote: > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:36:35 -0500 > From: Stahl, Sheryl > To: FEMINISTSF@listserv.uic.edu > Subject: [*FSFFU*] book group > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl > 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:05:41 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, speaking for myself, as a resident of the UK, I haven't ever seen those books on the shelves in the bookstores. Is this my oversight, or have other UK members noticed the same? I think we may need to plan the reading list pretty far ahead to account for tight budgets and overseas members. Monica Norman > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:21:01 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: feminism/humanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robin Reid wrote: > > I am interested in what you consider to be "feminine" aspects of life. The > traditional 'feminine' life that I rejected myself (without ever attacking > my friends who chose differently) was very limited: cook/clean/sew/raise > children/work inside home only in support of your man. ... I saw my mother > do this all while married to an academic (so she had the academic requirements > as well--i.e. social ones), and what I saw was that she worked harder and > longer than my father. Then he dumped her for a graduate student seven years > older than I was--my mother, who worked fulltime to put my father through > graduate school, got $300 a month alimony and has been working ever since. > My father is retired with an a great salary, a second wife, and two teenagers > (of course having two teenagers when you're seventy might be horrible). Robin, what happened to your mother is lousy. It stinks. That sort of scenario is in no way is what I refer to. In fact, that's why this is such difficult subject; talk of untangling postive from negative aspects sounds hollow when the negative has done such damage. Perhaps I can give some examples that will better illustrate what I mean. A few years ago I wanted to draw out a friend who had gone through a difficult time in her life. She wasn't seeing people much and was depressed. One day she told me she had read a romance novel with a lovely story that made her feel validated. She cried herself to sleep with the book in her arms because it helped her with the loneliness she felt. That book gave her enough feeling of self worth that she decided to go out again and see people. I took her with me to visit a group of friends. When she mentioned the romance, I couldn't believe the way they lit into her. They were patronizing and dismissive. Obviously a "strong" women would never cry herself to sleep from loneliness with, god forbid, a romance novel. Have you ever heard the misogynist freudian analyses about the supposed dysfunctions inherent to women? That was how their "anaylsis" of women who read romance novels sounded. It had the same feminine-bashing quality as Freud's work. I have no doubt they believed what they were saying, but so did Freud. It was unfortunate, to say the least. My friend went back into her depression. They had taken from her the one thing that made her feel validated. They sure as hell didn't. Because I stood up for her that night, I also lost the respect of some friends. Fewer than I expected, though. Another example: I like to wear pretty clothes and high heels. Traditionally feminine clothes. They aren't overtly sexy or low cut, but because of the way I'm built, after being a dancer most of my life, they apparently fit me in a way that some men find attractive. I have received grief about this, not from women so much, but from (some) men who tell me that if I want to be taken seriously by feminists (or physicists or hard sf people), I should dress in a less feminine manner. My reaction to them is "deal with it." I'm not going to wear a veil and robes, or dress "like a man," to cater to idea that a woman shouldn't look like a woman if she wants to be taken seriously. To me, that defeats the whole idea of feminism. > Philosophically, I reject the notion that only women are interested in what > I consider to be the "feminine" aspects of life: I have a cousin who works > in the home taking care of the children while his wife works full time: Actually, I have never suggested such a thing. In fact, my book THE LAST HAWK explicitly explores the effects of role reversal. I used to be a physics professor, but wanted to write. I stuck out the professor job for three years, although I knew by the third day it wasn't what I wanted. I was making more money than my husband at the time, so when I resigned it cut our income by more than half. He still did half the chores around the house and continues to do so even though he now makes more than the two of us used to combined. He does it so I can write. When I have been hit with a book deadline, he has taken complete responsibility for the household so I can get the book done. So here I am making posts on a listserv. I am not a good cook, shopper, or laundry person. Fortunately my husband is. I am a good mother, though. I love being a mother. I did from the moment I knew I was pregnant. I like to nurture, which is one reason I was also a good teacher. My husband loves being a father. He is wonderful with our daughter, nurturing and gentle. She seems to thrive in this environment. However, a few months ago she came to me with a great revelation. She said, "Mommy, do you know that some =mothers= cook the meals?" :-) Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:13:43 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What I should have added to my previous post is that, as suggested by some other people, perhaps everyone who is interested should submit two (or whatever) suggestions. Then we could set the reading list for the next 3,4,6 months and decide on a starting date, like for example, February? That would give most people time to obtain the books for Feb. and others would know what to get for March if they couldn't make Feb, etc. What do other people think? I was sort of being sheep-like as well and waiting for some dynamic organiser to take charge, but no one has stepped forward so far, so I throw my suggestion into the ring. Savage it at will.:) Monica > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:47 -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*] book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I vote for Monica's suggestion. Maybe we could pick two books a month--one that's newer and still in bookstores and one that's older and available at libraries. I think the big question here is who's going to be the sheepherder? baaaaa, LeAnne > -----Original Message----- > From: M.J.Norman [SMTP:mmnorman@macline.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 10:14 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] book group > > What I should have added to my previous post is that, as suggested by > some > other people, perhaps everyone who is interested should submit two (or > whatever) suggestions. Then we could set the reading list for the > next > 3,4,6 months and decide on a starting date, like for example, > February? > That would give most people time to obtain the books for Feb. and > others > would know what to get for March if they couldn't make Feb, etc. What > do > other people think? I was sort of being sheep-like as well and > waiting for > some dynamic organiser to take charge, but no one has stepped forward > so > far, so I throw my suggestion into the ring. Savage it at will.:) > Monica > > > > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for > books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > > > Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:16:05 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit KSHMEYER wrote: > However, as to what he had originally proposed, having a female starship > captian, that was thoroughly rejected. Majel Barrett, who played Captain > Pike's Number 1, was originially slotted to play the captain of the > Enterprise. This the suits scrapped and instead we ended up with the > glorified secretaries, although Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhuru, > eventually broke the mold and in one episode sat in the captain's chair. Yes! That was why TNG disappointed me. I had thought, with all the changes in our culture, it would come closer to Rodenberry's vision, as with a female Number 1 or even captian. Instead, it didn't seem to have made much progress. > As for strong women, some of the guest appearances would be worth noting, but > most of the program remained trapped decade in which it appeared.....the late- > sixties....go-go boots, mini-skirts, beehive hairdos, and the rest of the > sock-it-to-me trappings more appropriate to "Laugh-in" This is true. Some of the guests were excellent. And I liked Nichelle Nichols's (sp?) portrayal of Uhuru. I thought the worst episode was one of the last (perhaps the final), where a woman was denied the position of starship captain because She Was A Woman. Then she switched bodies with Kirk, so she could Be A Man. But of course she still made a terrible captain, because after all she had the mind of a ... well, you get the idea. The show was like a slap in the face. > As for Next Generation, Roddenberry's first improvement was the mere addition > of more lead female characters. While criticized, because Troi was a > counselor and Crusher a doctor, both caretaker-nurturer roles, I enjoyed both roles. I actually have no objection to women in caretaker-nurturer roles. In fact, they could use some men in those too. :-) > that Denise Crosby played Lieutenant Yarr, the head of security. The role had potential, but the show didn't utilize it all that well. Remember the episode where Yarr got put in the "penalty box" and her response, as head of security, was to sob to the local guy? That type of thing is what caused me to lose interest in the show. > the spot and no one was ever hired to take her place. However as the series > evolved, both Troi and Crusher took on more authoative postures, with Crusher > in "All Good Things Must Come to an End," captains a medical ship. (And I > will agree 100%, Michelle Forbe's role of Lieutenant Ro was outstanding and > Berman offered her a continuing job, but Forbes opted to making just a few > guest appearances, leaving her open to take other jobs that would come her way.) It did get better, that's true. I liked the one where Crusher was alone in the "bubble" universe that was shrinking and had to solve the problem to escape. > DS9 was the first major science fiction to open with two strong female > characters. Nan Visitor's portrayal of Major Kira is dynamite. Some of the > material the writers have given her over the years is some of the best work > for a woman working episodic television. Over the years the role of Dax has > also improved I haven't watched DS9 much, but only because our daughter decided to quit watching TV, so her father and I have been trying to support her decision by not turning it on (she decided when she was six, because "the plots are dumb" !) However, I've enjoyed what I've seen of DS9. What I like is that they acknowledge these people have lives, eg, families, relationships, recreations, etc. > As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty to the > franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the characters on > Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the women in > the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that attracts my > attention. I had the same reaction. Most of the shows I've seen on Voyager have Janeway essentially losing command to a male figure, usually Chahotay (how do you spell that?). It may be that I haven't seen the best shows, since I've only seen a few. What also caused me to lose iterest was that in the ones I saw, the "aliens" were essetially twentieth century, middle class Earthlings with American culture who spoke our English, even though they had never heard of Earth. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:29:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: book group In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980108102325.5167d060@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Honor Wallace wrote: > > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? > > I'm interested but waiting for more information. Name a book and I can probably get it. If not I'll read the posts and lurk.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:43:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Donna Bursey Subject: Re: book group Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I love Cherryh's sf stuff (not much for her fantasy, more's the pity) -- anyway, I'd recommend "Rimrunners" as an ideal start for the book group, if people are interested in reading Cherryh to start. It's a very good book, and I'd be interested in a focused discussion on it. Donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:11:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Star Trek On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 Cat Farrar said: > Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? > > Cat Farrar > > At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: > >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an > >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > > > >Barbara R. Hume In the Enterprise Incident, the "means to an end" was to steal the cloaking device from the Romulans (sp?)...Spock seduced the female commander while the device was being stolen (and even pretended to kill Kirk first to gain her confidence). Hoever, my impression is that Spock and the commander just made out and never actually made it to bed. Occasionally, I remember Kirk's "gals" to be a "means to an end", but oftentimes I remember it just being Kirk's sex drive working overtime. In one episode, Elaan of Troyus (sp?) cast a spell on Kirk, causing him to "fall in love" her...I believe that it was HER means to an end, but of course (after he bedded her), he did the "right" thing and let her go to her destiny (which was marrying royalty of a species she and her associates detested). I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. In fact, I remember one episode where a women who was scorned by Kirk, and/or turned down for a captain's position (my memory is fuzzy here), and later switched her "personality" to Kirk and vice versa. The explanation given here is that she hated her own "womanness". Also, Shatner's acting when he was "possessed" was pretty bad but somewhat amusing (a little overdramatized, if you will). However, the one episode I remember being absolutely horrific when it came to women was "Space Seed". The historian (woman) fell in love with Kahn before she ever met him...however when she met him, realized his intentions (capturing the Enterprise), rebelled against these intentions and he slaps her (to the floor). She then gave in to Kahn...and did his bidding. When I was seven years old and saw this, I wasn't horrified (or do not recall being disturbed by it). Of course, years later I was beyond horrified (and still am). Additionally, if anyone recalls "Wolf in the Fold", this episode had potential for a good science fiction plot and love interest for Scotty. However, Spock gives a "speech"-type explanation for the "Jack the Ripper being" or whatever it is that seems to travel in time and to different planets killing women. Spock's explanation was that he being lived on or fed on fear. I will quote this a best I can having not seen it in several years. "The being feeds on fear...which is why it chooses women, because they feel fear more deeply than men." Hardly a feminist statement, dontchaknow. (I was even more disturbed because my fav character said this!! Spock, Leonard, the logical one!!) The idea of Spock and Kirk having a love affair is interesting. I always thought Spock was there to keep Kirk from screwing up too bad due to his "runaway" emotions. But I always thought of the love/hate relationship between McCoy and Spock as potential for a certain closeness that I never really saw with other characters. While the original Star Trek was probably (in 1965) the closest we had seen to seeing women, blacks, and other minorities in powerful positions, it is far from being all-inclusive. I think it is sad that in many ways...this was as good as it got for feminists and minorities at the time. I did and do truly love all the star trek series (especially Voyager now that I can finally get a channel that carries it at a decent hour. I think Janeway and crew are fairly convincing, and despite the body suit and heels of "7 of 9" (which my lover finds quite attractive, but I do not), I am very excited about the upcoming episodes. Also, if they allow 7 of 9 to explore lesbianism I will be beyond amazed. My God, just look a what they have done to Ellen Degeneres (sp?). Just a few of my thoughts as a trekkie... Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:07:29 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, there was a lot of interest in doing a book group and good ideas proposed, which I saved. I've been swamped with work (even over the holiday break, which I'd hoped to avoid) but plan to spend some time this weekend compiling the suggestions into a proposal for the group. In the meantime feel free to propose/discuss what books you'd like to see included! If I don't get to it this weekend I'll be facing the music and looking for someone to hand the whole project off to. I hope that's not the case, as I really need a non-work project to keep me sane. Jennifer -- Jennifer Krauel Director of Product Marketing jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:39:38 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Romance novels Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 08:37:06 EST, you write: << Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, Voyager, Drums of Autumn They're marketed as romance, but are historical fiction/fantasy (modern woman in 18th century Scotland/America). I'm not a fan, so I don't know what the standard is now: these books I stumbled into and indulged myself, as a guilty pleasure. >> Why guilty? These novels are beautifully done! Gabaldon's choices of detail, her sensory descriptions, her character development, the emotional resonance, all are tremendously impressive. You can't help being totally caught up in the story. I fell so in love with Jamie Fraser I couldn't see straight--yet he is a real man, not a cardboard , cliched romantic hero. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:52:05 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: FW: [*FSFFU*] book group In-Reply-To: <4587B78A9949D111BD8500A0C98972F604A5AC@sdmail.dataworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit A possibility for OP books is to check out Basement Full of Books over on SFF-Net. (http://www.sff.net/bfob) Also, University Book Store in Seattle (there's a link to them on my web page, see .sig) is really good about keeping SF novels in stock for longer than the average one-week-and-you're-outta-here shelf-life. They have an 800 number and they don't charge for shipping. It's a terrific bookstore, and they support the sf community. Vonda On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:38:47 -0800, Le Anne Fossmeyer wrote: >I vote for Monica's suggestion. Maybe we could pick two books a >month--one that's newer and still in bookstores and one that's older and >available at libraries. > >I think the big question here is who's going to be the sheepherder? > >baaaaa, LeAnne http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun -- One of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of 1997" http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:50:07 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 12:32:44 EST, you write: << Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? >> That depends. In "Catspaw," it was to get back that transmuter thingy. In "A Rose by Any Other Name" and others, it was to get control of the ship back from the aliens. In "Bread and Circuses," it was, well, because she was there. Spock used and betrayed the Romulan commander for the benefit of the Federation, considering that more important than his own or her feelings. I suppose "All's fair in love and war" is one of the rules they learned in Starfleet Academy! Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:52:03 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 13:08:18 EST, you write: << how about some cherryh? i never have read her stuff and am looking for a place to start. >> Cherryh is good if you like a lot of military and political stuff in the novel. It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except for the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:42:44 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 10:46:59 EST, you write: << Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not interested in "assigned" reading after all? Sheryl >> I love to discuss books. I'm just not sure I can pile one more thing on my plate! But if the suggested reading is tempting enough, I'll bet we manage to do it. . . . Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:58:55 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lurima Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I agree that Cherryh would be an interesting choice. In the Chanur series, it's the females who go out and do the adventuring and the males who stay home. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:27:47 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: K Edge Subject: Brin's The Postman v. movie MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating especially interesting women characters. Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? Karen k.edge@m.cc.utah.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:35:08 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Honor Wallace wrote: > > Well, there was resounding silence to my suggestions for books > >to discuss ... is this complete lack of interest in them? ... or the > >silence of running to track them down to read? ... or are people not > >interested in "assigned" reading after all? No, I think everyone interested wants to decide what to read as a group, which is difficult considering that many of the university students don't return to class (and, thus, e-mail) until next week > Anyone out there with experience in this sort of thing who would like to > volunteer? > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:13:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? Comments: To: asaro@sff.net In-Reply-To: <34B2D10F.1B9E@sff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands pictured on the bookcover: http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm >What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of >readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often >believed. > >Best regards >Catherine >http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many of us realized! (still chuckling) jenn -- {jenn mottram} [Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ] {generally poetry} [ultimately a custard pie... A dirty joke is... ] {athena(at)geocities.com} [ a sort of mental revolution. ] {http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464} [ George Orwell ] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:30:41 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kitimher Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Greetings all~ I think Monica's suggestion is a good one as well, and Geoffrey's offer to post a schedule for us. Wondering too if we will engage in the discussion with posts here or attempt a "real time" meeting online? I'm looking forward to the possibilities here. tara Kitimher@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 04:09:48 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Vonda N. McIntyre" Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980108211334.00694b5c@mail.geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit And Anne Bolyn thought she had problems! The dutch edition of Dreamsnake is funnier. (Even the guy at whose Romance Novels site the "oddities" cover can be found retired from the field when I showed him Droomslang.) If you're up for a good laugh it's at http://www.sff.net/people/vonda/Droomslang.html Vonda On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:13:34 -0500, jenn mottram wrote: >Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands >pictured on the bookcover: >http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm > >>What I'm trying to say is that the romance field, both in terms of >>readers and writers, is more progressive and more diverse than often >>believed. >> >>Best regards >>Catherine >>http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ > >And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many >of us realized! > >(still chuckling) > >jenn http://www.sff.net/people/Vonda The Moon and the Sun: PW Best Books: http://www.bookwire.com/pw/bestbooks97.article$3946 Nebula prelim: http://www.sfwa.org/awards/1997prelim.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:37:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a month - things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each month): AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd love to refresh myself on it. HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. 'Nuff said. QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm game. ;) - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:45:15 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jenn mottram wrote: > > Everyone should go look at this site and count the # of woman's hands > pictured on the bookcover: > http://www.icgnet.com/romancebooks/oddities.htm > And with the above picture in mind, it's a LOT more progressive than many > of us realized! Jenn, LOL! Now that's true genetic engineering. Best -- Catherine ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:51:49 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: Semi-OT: Romance Novels as Feminist?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vonda N. McIntyre wrote: > > And Anne Bolyn thought she had problems! > > The dutch edition of Dreamsnake is funnier. (Even > the guy at whose Romance Novels site the > "oddities" cover can be found retired from the > field when I showed him Droomslang.) > > If you're up for a good laugh it's at > http://www.sff.net/people/vonda/Droomslang.html Vonda, good grief. Does it have anything to do with the actual story? Brenda Clough once showed me the cover to one of her books, in which the woman was dressed in almost nothing, with a dark brooding figure of sinister intent in the shadows behind her. Brenda said that in the book, the woman had a neck to ankle dress on that showed nothing. There is a Cherryh book too, that shows a scantily dressed female warrior on the front. It was one of the Mir stories, if I remember correctly. I don't remember there being a woman dressed in such an outfit in the book. In fact, if I remember correctly, both the men and women wore robes and veils because they lived in the desert, and the women had multiple husbands. It's been a loooong time since I read it, though, so my memory may be faulty. I wonder if those covers actually sell more books? Best -- Catherine http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:51:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penelope Gibbs wrote: > I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" > roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, > but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. Actually, that wasn't Roddenberry's original idea - Kirk was supposed to have a continuing romance with Yeoman Janice Rand. However, the actress had a few personal addiction problems, and was gone from the show after a while - I personally think the Trek team had no idea as to what to do with Kirk after Rand was gone. Now, we could also go on about how they dropped the ball and could have brought in Rand instead of Marcus in Star Trek II. However (I thought), it was a very nice touch to see Rand as a part of Sulu's command crew in ST VI... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 06:16:07 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Romance novels In-Reply-To: <36e94412.34b4d5c4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 08/01/98 13:33:55 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Kmfriello , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, Can anybody remember another book of that title, or is my addled brain getting confused with Waylander? Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 06:15:30 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <7a3415ac.34b55894@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It was 08/01/98 22:52:03 GMT when, as I was going about my lawful occasions, I observed Lurima , hereinafter referred to as the accused, writing on a Bristol monitor: > Cherryh is good if you like a lot of military and political stuff in the > novel. It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much > interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except for > the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- I haven't read any Cherryh for some while, but if I understand her statement correctly then I agree with her. I'll try two ways to illustrate this. 1) For every person I know, I think I could find a member of the opposite sex who could, with a little coaching before-hand, slip into his/her body and not be challenged as an impostor. 2) Take a reasonably large random sample of jobs, each with say 5 suitably qualified applicants of each sex. Represent each applicant with an identical asexual avatar and a number. I believe half the jobs will be offered to women. The same would apply to race, religion, or any other irrelevant factors on which hiring decisions are often based. Bigots react to the packaging, and never bother to look at the contents. Those of us who have exercised the option to think for ourselves wait until we have seen the person inside before passing judgement. I hope this makes as much sense to you as it does to me, and would welcome comment. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel I think we're in for a bad spell of wether. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:46:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BJBenesch Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: book group Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 15:01:04 EST, Donna Bursey wrote: > I love Cherryh's sf stuff (not much for her fantasy, more's the pity) -- > anyway, I'd recommend "Rimrunners" as an ideal > start for the book group, if people are interested in reading Cherryh to > start. It's a very good book, and I'd be interested in a focused > discussion on it. > > Donna Sorry to write a "Yeah, me too" message, but, I too would be very interested in a focused discussion on Rimrunners, although I'm not absolutely sure of its availability (I *think* I saw it in a bookstore [here in the States] at least within the last year, but I can't be positive). Failing Rimrunners, I'd take any likely excuse to try some more of Cherryh's SF. :) Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 02:50:44 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BJBenesch Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Star Trek Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-08 12:32:44 EST, you write: > Just a means to an end..????? What end would that be??? > > Cat Farrar > > At 12:01 AM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote: > >Kirk's bedding of females in classic Trek wasn't a goal. Just a means to an > >end. Spock even did it once, in The Enterprise Incident. > > > >Barbara R. Hume > > > > My Trek-fan friends had a phrase for it: "Scam on the babe so we can escape." Not very PC, but often accurate in the case of the original show. Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:49:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Penelope Gibbs Organization: UGA College of Vet. Med Subject: Re: Star Trek On Fri, 9 Jan 1998 Geoffrey D. Sperl replied: > Penelope Gibbs wrote: > > > I do not recall many of the women in these "babe o' the day" > > roles being given "strong roles and power". Occasionally, perhaps, > > but as one commenter pointed out, they were usually quite expendable. > > Actually, that wasn't Roddenberry's original idea - Kirk was supposed to have a > continuing romance with Yeoman Janice Rand. However, the actress had a few > personal addiction problems, and was gone from the show after a while - I > personally think the Trek team had no idea as to what to do with Kirk after Rand > was gone. > > Now, we could also go on about how they dropped the ball and could have brought in > Rand instead of Marcus in Star Trek II. However (I thought), it was a very nice > touch to see Rand as a part of Sulu's command crew in ST VI... > > - Geoffrey > What about the idea of another long-term relationship with someone else? Also, I noticed Rand's presence in "The Undiscovered Country"...it was nice to see her there. Also...another note on my occasionally negative attitude...I am not always this cynical. Penny ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:09:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's > Piercy. > 'Nuff said. > > - Geoffrey > I would second this one. This is one of my all time favorite books of any genre. It was also published in the UK under a different title (which I can't recall at the moment). sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:20:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Brin's The Postman v. movie In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, K Edge wrote: > > I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even > though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). > I saw it and liked it very much. If you think the movie needed editing, reread the book. The movie was much better plotted. > Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as > being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating > especially interesting women characters. Except for EARTH. > > Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:33:35 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well, as long as we seem to be tossing in suggestions, and people are interested in Cherryh (who is one of my favourite authors) how about "Forty Thousand in Gehenna", or the "Foreigner" trilogy? Although "Rimrunner" is one of the few I haven't read. But then, we aren't necessarily looking for stuff people have never read, are we? I have a feeling I would have to look pretty hard for "Ammonite", but I could always join in on the next book I guess, if I don't find it. Anyway, just some suggestions. Monica >Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a >month - >things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each >month): > >AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. >This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my >mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd >love to refresh myself on it. > >HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. >'Nuff said. > >QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who >puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her >debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. > >THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm >game. ;) > >- Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:44:31 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Akkk! I take it back, where is my brain?! I didn't mean Cherry's "Foreigner" trilogy (male protagonist), but Mary Gentle's "Golden Witchbreed". I really enjoyed the way she made the alien psychology/physiology different than the humans, the protagonist is female, and the alien women are very strong characters. Anyway, sorry to blather on. Monica >Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a >month - >things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each >month): > >AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. >This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my >mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd >love to refresh myself on it. > >HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. >'Nuff said. > >QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who >puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her >debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. > >THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm >game. ;) > >- Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:35:07 -0500 Reply-To: Joel VanLaven Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Essentialism/Interchangeability (was book group) In-Reply-To: <199801090615.GAA03003@lions.cableinet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Barbara (Lurima@AOL.COM) wrote about CJ Cherryh: [snip] > It also seems to me that her male and female characters are pretty much > interchangeable--she said herself that men and women are the same except > for the packaging. I definitely disagreee with her on that point-- On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Catweasel replied: > I haven't read any Cherryh for some while, but if I understand her > statement correctly then I agree with her. I'll try two ways to > illustrate this. [snipped two reasonable though higly subjective and flimsy arguments] > Bigots react to the packaging, and never bother to look at the contents. > Those of us who have exercised the option to think for ourselves wait > until we have seen the person inside before passing judgement. On the gripping hand, I disagree and agree with both of you. While this isn't exactly on topic it is an essential schism in feminism and is directly explored in a lot of SF. So, I'll try to bring it back on topic later. Here are my thoughts on the subject: 1) Men and Women are different. From a purely experiential point of view, men and women look, dress, talk, and write differently. 2) Almost all of that is only statistically and is undoubtedly significantly affected by society, culture, parenting, and all those "nurture" things. I don't want to decide how much society affects things, only that it does but that there is at least "some grain of truth" in some sex distinctions, i.e. it's somewhere in the grey, I am very unsure how dark or light. Given 2, I see the differences as societally induced (or blown up) and in any case non-essential. So, given any particular person, If I assume something about them based on their sex I am often going to be wrong (only statistical) and I will often be right only because of societal pressures. So, regardless of any actual natural differences between men and women, I must treat them as the same, as unique individuals all the same in their uniqueness. As a contrived example: If that means that I (an average strength man lets say) lift heavy things for women more often than for men or than the other way around that is fine (being a larger, relatively stronger person). However, That should not mean that I lift things for strong women more than for weak men or that I ask weak men for help more than strong women. It also means that I might convince a pregnant woman not to lift things, just as I might convince a man with a hernia not to lift things. On this subject, I think an author CAN be critisized for not having a range of characters of with different attitudes and outlooks. However, to demand that those differentiations be sex-linked isn't only unfair but is damaging to the cause, especially in SF where that society very well may have been replaced by something altogether different. If you think CJ Cherryh writes books filled with cookie-cutter clones of the same person in different garb (sex included) I feel that that is a valid critisism, and briefly and shallowly thinking about her books I think you might even have something of a point. If you think that her books bypass the issue of sex and gender, failing to deal with them in creative and complicated ways I might also agree, and consider that not so much a valid critisism but a difference in subjecti and focus. Of course the Chanur series had some interesting sex-related societal contructions with the whole space-faring women thing. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:24:08 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: Book Group ideas. . . In-Reply-To: <34B5B7A4.43894059@geocities.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 8 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions > and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's > schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - > unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... Thank you, Geoffrey, that you take this work upon you. How exactly do you intend to organise the voting? I think it will clutter up the list and annoy the list participants NOT interested in the book group if everybody just comments on the suggestions, and other people comment again on these suggestions, etc. I think it is better to wait till Geoffrey sends out a list of all suggestions together and everybody interested in the book group votes once on all suggestions, preferably somehow outside of the list. What do you think? And to make it clear, I do not want to stop any discussions on the relative merits of the books just an endless streams of messages with 'Me too' or 'Never!!'. Here now my suggestions (as before Christmas we agreed that it should be currently available in paperback and not to expensive I've looked it up in Amazon, the (list) prices are taken from there, the descriptions, too): - Theodore Roszak: The Memoirs of Elisabeth Frankenstein. Bantam, 1996 US-$ 5.99 I loved Shelley's Frankenstein and was intrigued when I saw this book on the list of Tiptree Award winners. - Nancy Springer: Larque on the Wing. Avon, 1995, US-$ 4.99 "Larque Harootunian is having a mid-life crisis. But Larque, wife, mother and painter isn't like most 40-year-olds. All her life she's been generating "doppelgangers," psychic manifestations of her thoughts that can impact and, as she suddenly realizes, impede, the reality of her own life. She embarks on a journey of self-exploration that culminates in her transformation--a common occurrence in this world--into an attractive gay man. In the end, she must weigh the attractions of this existence against the good aspects of her actual life. A 1995 James Tiptree Award winner." - Mary Doria Russell: The Sparrow. Fawcett Books, 1997, $ 12 "This strange, ambitious science fiction novel has already won enough attention for its first-time author to make it a selection by both the Book of the Month and QPB clubs. Father Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit linguist, heads a team of scientists and explorers on an expedition to the planet Rakhat, where contact has been established with two apparently primitive races, the Runa and the Jana'ata. The narrative shifts back and forth between 2016, when contact is first made, and 2060, to a Vatican inquest interrogating the maimed and broken Sandoz. A paleoanthropologist, Russell makes the descriptions of the inhabitants of Rakhat both convincing and unsettling." Also won the Tiptree Award. - Dorothy Bryant: The Kin of Ata are Waiting for You. first published 1983, Random, 1997, $ 10 Well, this book was so often mentioned on this list I am really interested in it by now. - Leona Gom: The Y Chromosome. Second Story Press, 1993, $ 14.95 This was also often mentioned and is, I think, a Tiptree Award winner. Actually the last 3 books I ordered from Amazon end of October. Amazon said surface shipping to destinies outside of North America 2-10 weeks, obviously Germany is at the upper end, I am still waiting for them. On 9 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > Well, here are my suggestions (BTW, I do implore that we read one book a month - > things are too hectic for too many of us to have to find two or three each > month): !!! > AMMONITE by Nicola Griffith - Actually, I'm seconding the original suggestion. > This is a great book for discussion (esp. on this list, but I'll simply shut my > mouth for the newcomers). It's been two years since I read it in class and I'd > love to refresh myself on it. Del Rey, 1993, $ 5.99 > HE, SHE, AND IT by Marge Piercy - Haven't read it, but own it. It's Piercy. > 'Nuff said. Ballantine Books, 1997, $12 > QUEEN CITY JAZZ by Kathleen Ann Goonan - I love the title (and, as a writer who > puts jazz into his own work, I'm hoping for some jazz in the book). It's her > debut novel, and it focuses on nanotech. Tor Books, 1996, $5.99 > THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY by Suzy McKee Charnas - A vampire anthropologist. I'm > game. ;) University of New Mexico, 1993, $13.95 Petra ** Petra Mayerhofer ** pm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de ** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:24:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . I have been reading people's suggestion for a book for the book group to read, and I just wanted to put in my votes for some of the books already suggested: Slow River or Ammonite - either is fine Kin of Ata - never read it, always wanted to He She It - my first choice; also something I have been wanting to read for some time Queen Jazz City - I'm typically interested in books that try to deal with nanotechnology; if it's potentially feminist, even better! Bonnie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 12:23:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: OT - suggestions wanted Comments: To: Lois Bujold Fandom MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I would dearly love to find a piece of technology the size and weight of an average book, keyboard-driven (I HATE trakballs!), on which I could write, do my finances, and play games - I would also like to be able to download (or insert in A drive) any novel I cared to read, and get my email. Except - I'd also like to find a small lightweight pocket phone that's usable in every part of the country without costing $5 a minute, and if (as some ads suggest) I can also get my email on it, that's even better. Questions: have any of you ever seen, used, or own anything like these? How much are/were they and what problems are there with them? I find the electroncis revolution is moving a lot faster than I can follow these days! Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:11:36 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: Romance novels In response to Catweasel's query > Try Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, >can anybody remember another book of that title, or is my addled brain >getting confused with Waylander? Some weeks ago I mentioned B J Salterberg's 'The Outlander: Captivity' about a male from a military culture who stumbles into a matriarchal enclave. There is apparently a sequel 'The Outlander: Quest' but I haven't been able to get hold of this yet. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:46:05 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kitimher Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: More Book Group ideas. . . Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thank You Petra! for creating such a user friendly list for us to browse. I suggest Esther Friesner's duo Psalms of Herod (1995) and Sword of Mary (1996) (both paperbacks published by White Wolf, both $4.79 from amazon.) as two that would prompt interesting discussion. Having said that, the existing list looks better each day. . . And re: Outlander--Jane Rule also authored a great book with this title; novellas, short stories, poems, (?) on the lesbian experience. Very nicely done. tara Kitimher@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:43:26 -0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Liliam Subject: Book group MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, everybody! I'm new in the list, a foreigner bookworm. And I'm also a little bit of a voyeur in discussion lists... however, I was tempted to get out of my hole to give some suggestions: 1. THE FALLING WOMAN by Pat Murphy. It's a very moving story about mother-daughter relationship, insanity, freedom, love and fear. There are both psychological depth and pathos and also a Mayan priestess ghost...It's really a beautiful novel and someone on the net wrote that it was especially recommended for those "parental- impaired"... 2. CYTEEN by C.J.Cherryh I think this book is terrific: complex, paranoiac and highly hypnotic. It's essentially deals with genetics and politics. 3. WAKING THE MOON by Elizabeth Hand The only one of this list that I haven't read yet. But it sounds incredibly good in this summary of Amazon.com: "The University of the Archangels and St. John the Divine is a haven for the Benandanti who guard against the return of the Moon Goddess, a powerful destroyer. As a freshman at the university, Sweeney Cassidy fell in with Oliver and Angelica, the Chosen Ones, whose violent coupling under the moon begins the goddess' awakening. Twenty years later, Sweeney works for the National Museum of Natural History and Angelica is a New Age writer with a growing, eccentric following. When Dylan, Angelica's son becomes Sweeney's intern, she discovers that Angelica is the goddess incarnate and that she is the only one who can stop her. The novel won a James Tiptree Jr. Award in 1996." Liliam ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:50:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Re: Book Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Baaaaaaaaa. I, too, have been waiting for someone to organize it. Votes for books to read: Cherryh is a personal favorite. I have almost all of them. I've read every one. I think the Cyteen trilogy would be her best one for this purpose. But maybe people don't want to read THAT much Cherryh. I just recently re-read Ammonite. If we're going to read Griffith (another favorite), I would rather re-read Slow River. Books currently on my shelf, awaiting a good excuse to read them: - Jigsaw Woman (Antieu) - Deception Well (Nagata) I guess I'd vote for Deception Well. I just recently read The Bohr Maker, and liked it very much. Also, I've recently read The Bones of Time, by Goonan. So, while I don't have the title mentioned (something about jazz?), if I can find a copy of it, that would be good, too. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:26:53 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group Ideas Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Please, please, not Elizabeth Hand! I slogged through Wake the Moon AND Glimmering: it was a wretched experience, and I never want to return to either turgid, sodden mess again. Her plotting and dubious ideas and dreary characterization aside, it is an indictment of modern editing that she was allowed to commit as many howling sins of language as she did: couldn't anyone tell her that "scungilli" is not Italian for octopus? That a catalfalque is not a mausoleum? That Naugahyde was not used in kitchen fittings (I think she meant Formica)? I won't even open the books to find anything else--it seemed that every few minutes I was grinding another indigestible bit of grit between my teeth. I was flabbergasted that Wake the Moon was even nominated for a Tiptree, especially given the condemnation of Mother religions that made up the core of the book. I only read both because of the Tiptree (at first from curiousity, and then in a sort of sick fascination) and because John Clute had mentioned Glimmering in the same breath as John Crowley and I thought I might have missed something. Anyway, Ugh. No. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:42:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penelope Gibbs wrote: > What about the idea of another long-term relationship with someone > else? Don't quote me on this (I'm not a tried and true trekkie - my fav shows on tv right now are DS9, B5, and, alas, MAD ABOUT YOU), but I always heard that Roddenberry wanted Kirk available if Rand ever came back into the show...but as time went on, and Roddenberry's influence (and budget) waned (due to both DesiLu and Paramount), it was probably easier just to keep pushing out things with familiar themes. Now that I think about it - where are the long term relationships at in any ST show? There's Miles and Keiko and there's Worf and Dax - everyone else is either widowed (Crusher and Siko) or seperated by something (Neelix, Janeway, Kirk). Curious. > Also, I noticed Rand's presence in "The Undiscovered Country"...it > was nice to see her there. I agree. Except that the credits list her as "Excelsior Comm Officer" or some such... - Geoffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:37:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Geoffrey D. Sperl" Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > On 8 Jan 98 , Geoffrey D. Sperl wrote: > > I volunteer if no one else wants to - I'll organize the suggestions > > and take votes on them. Once we know exactly what the group's > > schedule will be, I'll post a web page with the schedule on it - > > unless someone (anyone!) else wants to do this... > > Thank you, Geoffrey, that you take this work upon you. Jennifer, are you going to take the lead, or should I start working in GeoCities and making a new page? Petra, to answer your other question: I will take the mails personally. I would organize all of the titles, throw them in alpha order (accord. to author), and post to the web site. Then I'd set a date (two or three weeks from now maybe, in order to catch the returning college students), and have a link to e-mail straight to my account (or another of my three e-mail addresses), giving everyone three to four days to send me votes. My system would be this: Lists of books for six months at a time. Therefore, each voter gets six votes. Once the six winners are announced, I'd lay out the info on each of them (price, etc.), and then ask what everyone wants in what months (ie., you'd write with "February - AMMONITE"). Then I tally again and post to the list the final schedule... Simple enough, but time consuming for a virtual environment... - G ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:58:02 -0500 Reply-To: Tanya Wood Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Wood Subject: Re: Book Group ideas. . . In-Reply-To: <34B787B6.734BB893@geocities.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Kudos to Geoffry! I'd definitely like to nominate, 1/Kim Anteau's "Jigsaw Woman" 2/ Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (the grandmother of SF after all!) 3/ Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis series (perhaps "Dawn"?) 4/ Joanna Russ' "The Adventures of Alyx" (there is hardly any critical literature on this one and I'd be really interested in hearing what people say. Its very early in second wave feminism). 5/ Vonda McIntyre's "Superluminal" Tanya. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:44:47 -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: Brin's The Postman v. movie Comments: To: K Edge In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, K Edge wrote: > I saw the movie The Postman over New Year's and was impressed even > though I feel it needed editing (especially the 2nd half). I liked the movie but I also think it could have used a little editing. 2 and a half hours, whew! > Read the book several years ago and can't remember the women as > being so strong-charactered. Brin doesn't strike me as creating > especially interesting women characters. I have to admit that I didn't finish the book. I might try and re-read it, though (after I get through all the other stuff on my too read list!). > Has anyone else seen the movie? Comments? > Karen > k.edge@m.cc.utah.edu > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:35:15 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Book group proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Finally, here's my proposal for our book group! Please feel free to debate any of these points. I'll collect comments and next weekend set something up and get it rolling. Jennifer -- Jennifer Krauel Vice President, Product Development and Customer Care jkrauel@actioneer.com 415.536.0715 fax 415.882.4372 http://www.actioneer.com ----------------------------- Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Discussion Group Ideas in this proposal were collected from excellent suggestions from members and other on-line book groups (e.g. Bookwoman list). I only take credit for collecting them and picking some of the best. Ideas I couldn't incorporate but really liked I listed at the end so that they might be someday worked in. The only great idea I haven't figured out how to tie in is the food and drink part. Perhaps each book discussion could include the snack-of-the-month to be consumed while reading or discussing. Objective The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSF list, just focus the discussion. Book selection Group members nominate any feminist "speculative fiction" book. Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. For best results, include your reasons for nominating a book. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. If possible this bibliography would also be maintained on the web page. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in paperback on amazon.com (although they could be purchased anywhere or borrowed from the library.) This unfortunately eliminates the out-of-print or very new books, but there's still plenty of great material that qualifies. I assume that people outside of the U.S. could order books from amazon.com if they aren't available locally; this may be not optimal but at least guarantees the possibility of international participation. Members vote for three books each, and the top three are selected in alphabetical order by title for the next three months. Nominations are open for one week, and then voting is open for a week. I propose we follow a plan like this for a three-month period, then adjust the overall program if necessary, say for a six-month period. During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending email to the group with BDG Nomination in the subject line. Someone collects the nominations daily during the nomination period and updates the nomination list on a web page, preferably on Laura's FSF site. Voting happens by sending email to someone who tabulates votes and announces winners. The reading schedule will be posted on a web page, again preferably the FSF site. I'll make announcements at the beginning and end of each period in the book selection cycle, and before the beginning of each monthly discussion. Structure New book discussions begin monthly on the 1st Monday of the month. We'll use this main list; Laura assures me we can move the discussion to a separate list if many people complain about volume. A leader opens each discussion with a brief book synopsis (so those who didn't read it can follow along if they want) and by leading members in identifying the book's themes to give the discussion some structure. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. Alternatively we could include the initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. I think there's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. If possible this bibliography would also be maintained on the web page. Volunteer opportunities - Collect nominations and update the list on the web site - Collect votes, tabulate and announce the winners - Maintain the reading schedule on the web site, including bibliograpy of related reading materials - Lead a discussion by posting a book summary and opening discussion If you're interested in helping out, please email me privately and I'll coordinate. More Great Ideas Organizing group discount with Amazon or other reseller Tracking book nominators, letting them lead discussion Ensuring an even mix of types of FSF lit (warning: definition war zone) Having >1 book per month, possibly of varying types Picking an author of the month and discussing all or any of her/his works ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:21:54 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I loved the Brin book, although I questioned his women. What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a miliatiaman (or whatever). Costner handwaves it by having a green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the film. If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. I don't get it. It must be a guy thing. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 02:45:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: BJBenesch Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book group proposal Comments: To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Jennifer - Just wanted to commend you on your proposal. It looks like you've done a lot of work putting together just the proposal, and are in for more work in dealing with the discussion list itself. I'm very eager to participate, and am currently trying to figure out if I can realistically volunteer to help out (I'd bring cupcakes or something, but somehow that doesn't work so well :). Thanks so much from one of the many sheep on the list who wanted the discussion group, but was in no shape to contemplate doing it myself. Again, kudos and thanks!! Barbara Benesch BJBenesch@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:40:03 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: star trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I had thought, with all the changes in our culture, it would come closer > >to >Rodenberry's vision, as with a female Number 1 or even captian. > >Instead, it >didn't seem to have made much progress. Of course I'm no expert, but I think we may be expecting too much of the 'powers that be' who are running the ST franchise and buying the scripts. Even though the fans of Star Trek have been one of the most vocal groups in the history of television, I think the people funding TV and movies will more often play it safe, so they can be sure of getting a return on their investment, rather than worry about appealing to what they see as a smaller segment of their potential audience (i.e. women). After all, to them, the most lucrative consumers of such things are those 18-25 year old males. (sigh) Regardless of what progress society has made, these TV people are _not_ always in touch with social reality. **Note: If you haven't already, look up "How Not to Write for Star Trek" on the Net and read an outsider's experiences of submitting stories to the ST producers.** URL: //web.dbtech.net/~jamiller/nottrek.htm >> As for Voyager, I have to agree, that while I watch out of loyalty to the >> franchise, the characters have not captured me the way the characters on >> Generations did,or even DS9. Here I fault the writing. While the women in >> the cast play strong characters I haven't found the spark that attracts my >> attention. >I had the same reaction. Most of the shows I've seen on Voyager have >Janeway essentially losing command to a male figure, usually Chahotay >(how do you spell that?). It may be that I haven't seen the best shows, >since I've only seen a few. I don't think of myself as a Trekkie, but I've liked Star Trek since I was a pre-teen. I viewed it then with much less critical eyes and the whole idea of travelling in space for a job really appealed to me - and there were women doing it too! I think my enthusiasm has made me less critical than some people. I tend to look for the good things, even if I do see the less admirable aspects. And now, living so far away from home, there are (believe it or not, BBC notwithstanding) things about American television that I miss (Especially "Northern Exposure" and CNN). So I was really excited by the idea of the new series, Voyager, especially when I heard a woman was the captain and a capable scientist as well. It has, unfortunately, been something of a disappointment - though I have to admit I do like the character of Chakotay, and I still watch it. But rather than seeing Janeway as always "losing command to a male figure", I guess I've seen her command style to be more of a "consensus" nature, rather than the traditional "one man makes the decisions and the others follow" kind of thing. At least when the script is well-written that's what I see. The worst part, for me, is being a full season behind you in the US. I keep up by reading reviews and synopses on the Net, but it's not the same. What do other people think of 7 of 9 at present? I've seen one (taped) early episode from the new season and far from being the bimbo many thought she'd be (those 18-25 males again), she could be a good thing for the series - if the character is handled well. Comments from those who've seen the more recent episodes? Monica ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 11:15:34 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Book Group Proposal Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-01-10 17:40:25 EST, you write: << Finally, here's my proposal for our book group! >> This sounds like the best proposal. Looking forward to getting started! ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:24:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Book group proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A book discussion group sounds like a lot of fun. We have bi-weekly discussion groups at MG, and cover all four of our genres (SF/Fan/Mystery/Horror) I would be glad to offer a discount to List members, but am frankly uncomfortable at the idea of playing second fiddle to Amazon.com, whose only merit, in my admittedly biased opinion, is that they challange the dominance of superstores on the web. Sorry to be snippy, but I guess I was a little hurt at not being approached about this. :( Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:38:29 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Cherryh ----------------------------- >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:35:07 -0500 >From: Joel VanLaven >Subject: Essentialism/Interchangeability (was book group) > >If you think CJ Cherryh writes books filled with cookie-cutter clones of >the same person in different garb (sex included) I feel that that is a >valid critisism, and briefly and shallowly thinking about her books I >think you might even have something of a point. If you think that her >books bypass the issue of sex and gender, failing to deal with them in >creative and complicated ways I might also agree, and consider that not so >much a valid critisism but a difference in subjecti and focus. Of course >the Chanur series had some interesting sex-related societal contructions >with the whole space-faring women thing. I think that Cherryh *does* deal with sex and gender in interesting ways, but that most of her examination of them isn't foregrounded in her work, and probably isn't her major focus of interest. Which doesn't stop it from being one of *my* interests when I read her books. :) I may be one of the few readers who's intrigued by Cherryh's take on gender and *didn't* like the Chanur books. I find the Union/Alliance and the Morgaine books much more interesting; I like the way they invert gender cliches in a perfectly serious way. So in the Morgaine books and =Downbelow Station=, you get the inversion of the Gothic woman-jeopardized-by-the-man-with-power-over-her -- and it's not just the femme fatale inversion, because the woman authority figures are explicitly characterized as *not* attractive -- and the jeopardized men are pretty boys. Or =Cyteen=, which I consider her best book for many reasons, which separates out sex, gender, and reproduction, and looks at each of three as something that's constructed partly by biology, partly by society, partly by "chance" social interaction. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:57:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34B856F2.7AC7@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... But he had a thrilling escape scene, and the Big Confrontation took place at the end, as it should. > > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > miliatiaman (or whatever). Costner handwaves it by having a > green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they > have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > film. > > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let > it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad > nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a > tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. > > I don't get it. It must be a guy thing. > Someone on the Bujold list answered that one. The men probably lived better than the villagers. They certainly considered themselves to have more prestige. And in a reign of terror, a lot of people would rather be the terrorizers than the terrorized. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:11:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: star trek In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, M.J.Norman wrote: > segment of their potential audience (i.e. women). After all, to them, the > most lucrative consumers of such things are those 18-25 year old males. > (sigh) Regardless of what progress society has made, these TV people are > _not_ always in touch with social reality. I've met quite a few of these young men.. Most of them are wearing female bodies that are around 50 years old. Tha includes me. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews @unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:14:06 -0800 Reply-To: jkrauel@actioneer.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Organization: Actioneer, Inc. Subject: Re: Book group proposal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maryelizabeth, Not only did I mean to hurt anyone, I had meant to look up your web page myself because it sounded interesting. I'm sorry to not have included you and wish you had suggested something earlier when others were posting great ideas. I have no love for Amazon except, as you mentioned, as an example of an independent. And I only included an online reseller as a way for anyone online (geographically unlimited) to verify a book's in print and order it if necessary. If you can provide that, that's a way better idea than mine. Thanks! Jennifer Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > A book discussion group sounds like a lot of fun. We have bi-weekly > discussion groups at MG, and cover all four of our genres > (SF/Fan/Mystery/Horror) I would be glad to offer a discount to List > members, but am frankly uncomfortable at the idea of playing second fiddle > to Amazon.com, whose only merit, in my admittedly biased opinion, is that > they challange the dominance of superstores on the web. > > Sorry to be snippy, but I guess I was a little hurt at not being approached > about this. :( > > Maryelizabeth > Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 > 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 > San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX > http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:30:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I would like to suggest that people purchase from Maryelizabeth when feasible, and that perhaps someone could volunteer to coordinate with her, instead of with amazon.com. And, Maryelizabeth, I read the reference to amazon.com as more of a books-in-print verification than a point-of-purchase suggestion, but upon rereading the proposal see that it was meant as the latter. I vote that this book discussion group take pains to avoid the decimation of publishing and the super stores. If the books are in print, your local feminist bookstore should have them, and Maryelizabeth can certainly get them... now that she has apparently volunteered herself? What do people think? Rudy Leon Syracuse University releon@syr.edu (315) 425-8171 ~~ A conversation is a rare phenomenon... It is not a ~~ ~~ confrontation. It is not a debate. It is not an exam. ~~ ~~ It is questioning itself. It is a willingness to follow the ~~ ~~ question wherever it may go. ~~ --David Tracy _Plurality and Ambiguity_ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:44:06 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Pat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > > > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... > > But he had a thrilling escape scene, and the Big Confrontation > took place at the end, as it should. The book has an even more exciting final confrontation as well. Costner dumped the first one, and imo that was a shame. It was a much better forum for back story and plot set-up. > > > > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > > miliatiaman (or whatever).(snip) > Someone on the Bujold list answered that one. The men probably > lived better than the villagers. They certainly considered themselves to > have more prestige. And in a reign of terror, a lot of people would rather > be the terrorizers than the terrorized. But that's just my point. In the movie and to a lesser extent in the book, the militiamen lead at least as dangerous an existance as the villagers. They are subject to the vagueries of their insane boss and to combat with outside forces. Prestige doesn't seem to answer it for me. Esp. not in real life. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 21:04:13 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: [FSSFU] Book group proposal Another thought: what about anthologies of feminist sff fiction? There are many of these. Would one make a good start? Or, would doing a story a week (say) be not enough or prolong the reading over too long a period? (The one that immediately springs to mind as being in print at the moment is the 'Penguin Book of Modern Fantasy by Women' (1941-1995) which includes stories by several members of this list) Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:45:26 -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: The Postman Comments: To: Pat York In-Reply-To: <34B856F2.7AC7@localnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII My answer includes some so please don't read on if you plan on seeing the movie. (SPOILERS> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: (snip) > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > opening (a thrilling, near death battle between the hero and a group who > rob him of virtually everything) and exchanged it for, well, a mule. > Don't get me wrong, the mule is cute, but really.... I didn't see it that way. He manages to escape from the militiamen with nothing but the clothes on his back and his cleverness. He found the postal uniform and used it to con a village out of food and a horse. What he didn't realise was that these villagers needed the hope that he represented. His con game turned into a real movement. > What I don't understand in this movie or in most such movies or books, > is how the author/director can make us believe that human beings, > rational or not, would *choose* a dangerous, frightening existance as a > miliatiaman (or whatever). These militiamen were the only source of law and order. When the U.S. collapsed, there was probably a great deal of chaos, death and destruction. The militiamen represented safety. There are a lot of people in the world who are willing to give up their autonomy for safetly. And there was a certain amount of "brain washing" going on (forced into exhausting activities, bombarded with the Holeness rules and philosophy, forced to be a part of the group including branding, not given enough food or water etc.). People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. I understand in an intellectual way why someone would want to do something as demanding and dangerous as being a Navy SEAL, for example. I understand why someone would put their life on the line to be a police officer or a fireman even though it isn't something I would choose for myself. > Costner handwaves it by having a > green-toothed fellow (you can always tell the bad guy 'Red Shirts'--they > have bad teeth) explain that he desparately wants to be part of > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > film. Hmmmm... I wouldn't say capriciously sacrificed. He had bought the party line and had gone too far to back out. He was given the choice to escape but -couldn't- take it. Costner's character killed him in order to escape. > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > What's worse, if it were not a reflection of real life I'd probably let > it pass--but it is. Consider Amin, Pol Pot, Chauchesque (sp?), etc. ad > nauseum. They attracted plenty of followers with nothing more than a > tacky uniform and a chronic fear of death. The militiamen were so frightening -because- it is human nature to want to be a part of something even if it is evil. Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:46:17 -0800 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I figure that if I can't find the books in the Bay Area at my local independent store who orders things for me (owned by friends), Maryelizabeth will get an email or other message from me about getting the books in question. The Amazon site is good for finding the ordering information (ISBN) though. Making sure that friends and comrades get your business is an empowering thing. peace, 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, 11 Jan 1998 19:05:43 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kmfriello Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: avoiding megastores, supporting the list Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit If MaryElizabeth can provide this service, I'm all for endorsing her rather than Amazon. I don't have much trouble laying my hands on anything, with access to NY bookstores. And with enough notice, even out-of-print books can be hunted up for those in need, possibly by volunteering members? By the way, for students or those of us who buy by the sackful, the Strand in NYC has half-priced review copies of books, including sf by the major publishing houses, usually in stock a few weeks before national release. I know you can order from their catalogue---I'll check to see whether they'll take mail-order requests on open stock. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:39:23 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Book Group Proposal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sounds like a good proposal! But I have to say I liked Geoffrey's idea of having a separate email address to which people can send nominations and votes. If someone could be found (Geoffrey?) who is willing to receive, collate and then post this information on the web page and on the list when appropriate, it might save a lot of traffic on the list that's just votes and nominations. What do others think? And I like the idea of trying to limit nominations to books which can be easily obtained by overseas subscribers (since I'm one of them :)). Either that, or could I suggest that if there is very strong general feeling about a book that would be difficult for some people to find, perhaps we could agree on two books for a particular month, one easy to get and the difficult one. I understand the reasons behind why we are encouraged to buy from local feminist bookstores. Unfortunately, there are books published in the US that I simply can _not_ get in bookstores in the UK, because the bookstore does not deal with that particular publisher. Either that, or books come out months later here than in the US. In my case, and possibly in the case of other overseas listsubscribers, a Net supplier like Amazon may be the best source. I think that was one of the reasons it was mentioned in the proposal and I appreciate the proposer's efforts to include the list's more "difficult" members ;-). Monica Norman Hampshire, UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:30:50 -0400 Reply-To: pyork@localnet.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat York Subject: Re: The Postman Comments: To: Stacey Holbrook MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey Holbrook wrote: > > My answer includes some so please don't read on if you plan on > seeing the movie. > > (SPOILERS> > > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Pat York wrote: > > (snip) > > What fascinated me about the movie was that Costner took a terrific > > opening .... > I didn't see it that way. He manages to escape from the militiamen with > nothing but the clothes on his back and his cleverness. He found the > postal uniform and used it to con a village out of food and a horse. What > he didn't realise was that these villagers needed the hope that he > represented. His con game turned into a real movement. Well, yes, of course--an hour into the movie. His escape from the bad guys could have happened in an opening montage. That would have gotten us off with a bang and the uniform and village conning would have followed naturally. > These militiamen were the only source of law and order. You've got to be kidding. They would ride into town, 'commandeer' stuff, spread terror and destruction and then leave. The first village had a perfectly good sherrif. The militia were what they needed protection AGAINST. And > there was a certain amount of "brain washing" going on (forced into > exhausting activities, bombarded with the Holeness rules and philosophy, > forced to be a part of the group including branding, not given enough food > or water etc.). You're quite right. The Stockholm Syndrome at work. > People -choose- to do things with their lives that totaly baffle me. Yep, me too. But the examples you cite (Navy Seal, Police Officer, Firefighter) are clearly seen by all of us as being of use to the greater good of the community. Even if I couldn't do those jobs, I understand why someone else would choose to. Be a militiaman in the army of a psychopathic Xerox salesman? Nope. I don't get that. ... bad guy recruit explains that he desparately wants to be part of > > 'something bigger'. And yet he is capriciously sacrificed early in the > > film. > > Hmmmm... I wouldn't say capriciously sacrificed. He had bought the party > line and had gone too far to back out. He was given the choice to escape > but -couldn't- take it. Costner's character killed him in order to escape. Nononono. Costner was doing what he needed to do. The Holnist Captain made the decision to sacrifice Green-Tooth. And look at that Ltn. He was just as crazy as his boss. All cardboard characters when you really get down to it. Real bad guys are much more complex. > > > If this were unusual I'd probably not even notice it--but it's not. > The militiamen were so frightening -because- it is human nature to want to > be a part of something even if it is evil. You're right there. And aweful as it seems, I think that's the bottom line. We all long to be p