Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9808B" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 15:27:47 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG October book replacement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thank you to those of you who pointed out that our October book, Shadow Man, no longer seems to be available in paperback, if at all. I think I've avoided doing anything about this because I was so looking forward to discussing it, since I had nominated it. Bummer. Seems to me the best approach would be to substitute the book getting the 7th highest number of votes, which would be Octavia Butler's Wild Seed. I just checked Amazon and they show it available almost immediately, which means your local independent bookseller probably also has it. It's been out for a long time, so you might already own it. This will substitute directly for Shadow Man; discussion will begin on Monday October 5. Hopefully this gives all our far-flung participants enough time to track down a copy and read it by then. Dicussion on our September book, Candas Jane Dorsey's Black Wine, begins Monday, September 7. Please let me know if anyone has any problems with this arrangement. Regards, Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 16:01:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: bdg - general comments In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:30 PM 07/20/98 -0700, you wrote: >to clarify the roles of the BDG in the context of the general list's >discussion, maybe someone who was been doing some of the BDG volunteer >work would write me up a short blurb that i can include in the basic list >info? > >Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org > Laura, Here's some text about the recently discussed BDG process refinements. You can put this into the BDG info page where you like - maybe under the Structure section. Also, please change the October book selection from Shadow Man to Wild Seed (Octavia Butler). This should happen as quickly as possible. Thanks! Jennifer ------ List participants can of course discuss past or future discussion group books at any time. If the book is slated for a future discussion but you really want to talk about it earlier, remember to use "spoiler" warnings in the title, as not all participants will have yet read the book. New members and others are also welcome to post comments about books the discussion group has already covered. If you weren't around for the original discussion, it's polite to go through the archives to see what others have already said before you post your own comments. ------ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:08:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: _I Who Have Never Known Men_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" by Jacqueline Harpman, 1995, trans. 1997 by Ros Schwartz from the French; a sad little book, but very feminist according to all the hoopla we've been having on the list. Very interesting, in fact (being French, very philosophical)--has anybody else read this one, care to discuss it? Heather =) __________________________________________ "Output of your job hmaclean: > Reality is only a question of language. Unknown command - "REALITY". Try HELP." -------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 01:24:29 -0500 Reply-To: Stacey Holbrook Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: BDG: Alien Influences In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Sharon Anderson wrote: (snip) > 1) the main female character is a victim, who is cruelly used, and > commits one heroic act, then immediately commits suicide, because she sees > no way out Only in the most technical sense did she commit suicide. She and the others chose to give up their bodies in order to attain a different state of being. They all took the chance that the horrible existence that they were stuck with would be exchanged for a better one. Eventually, their gamble paid off. They ended up living in "heaven" on the Bodleangenie's planet. > (what I failed to point out, but somebody else did it for me, is > that this "heroic" act would result in someone losing a job/career. The > person who commits the act knows this, and makes certain that another woman > -- not a man, but a woman --gets the blame and loses the career) And it was this woman who was culpable in allowing the baby Minaran to be housed in the hotel. Does it really make a difference whether or not it was a man or a woman? There were plenty of male characters who didn't come out smelling like a rose. > 2) of the minor female characters in the book: > the security chief is a villain > the lawyer is stupid, a dupe, and a villain because of this I don't consider any of the characters true villains. They were all victims or perhaps survivors of the terrible events of the past. Which security chief are you talking about? I only recall male security chiefs. The lawyer wasn't stupid. She was a dupe, though. The odds were stacked against her from the very beginning. She was overwhelmed with the responsibility of defending these children that the government had an interest in making sure that they couldn't be defended. I certainly don't consider the lawyer a villain because she was trapped in a no win situation that wasn't of her choosing. > the anthropologist is blamed, goes to prison, loses her career, and > is silenced Yet another victim of the governmental cover up. > Now. Where, O where is there one -- just ONE -- positive role > model who is female? Someone those of us with XX chromosomes can aspire > to? Someone we can say "I wanna be HER!" IMHO there isn't a single person in the entire book that I would say "I wanna be her/him". I didn't read the book to find role models. I had hoped to find an interesting story with interesting characters and that is what I got. All of the characters were well drawn. They were flawed, they made mistakes and they suffered. Some of them managed to overcome their past (like when the judge who had once been the lawyer for the the children finally lifted the gag order on the anthropologist). Some of them took responsibility for their mistakes and tried to rectify them (like Schafer the psychologist who finally managed to help John and reveal the truth about why the murders were committed). None of the characters was left unscathed. > I am not talking about the spear carriers here. They were pretty > evenly divided according to gender. So what? I am saying that once again, > we have an action story where the boy gets all the glory, saves the genie, > defeats the villain, and proves himself a man. The secondary male gets to > work through his angst, prove himself virtuous in the end, and also, > therefore a man. And the girl gets to kill herself in despair of ever > being rescued. > THIS is feminist? If the above is everything about this book then no, it isn't feminist. But the book is much more. It is about child abuse, alienation, government cover ups, fear of the "other" or anything that is different, maintaining the status quo even if it damages children, the helplessness of the disenfranchised. It is about how the system crushes those who are least able to recover from the damage. An entire colony was allowed to abuse children for -generations- because the government was making too much money from the sale of Salt Juice to look too closely at where it was coming from. Turning a blind eye to the goings on in the colony leads to horrendous results and many damaged lives. I think this is one of the few science fiction books that deals with the theme of child abuse especially with such sensitivity. That makes the book feminist. The female characters are individuals and are crucial to the plot and not just window dressing or "tokens" make it feminist. That no one questioned that women were in positions of power (it was perfectly normal to have a female governor) or doubted that the women could do their jobs because they were the "weaker sex" make it feminist. Just MHO. > Sharon L. Anderson > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 08:20:28 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? Comments: cc: Jennifer Krauel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jennifer et al: I love WILD SEED and would love to discuss it, but kinda hate to do it by default. And I know some people purchased SHADOW MAN successfully before it disappeared. Would anyone be interested in a general Melissa Scott discussion structured a little differently in October, rather than changing books? Or would that just be too darn confusing? I wouldn't suggest this for someone with a huge body of work, but I think hers might be managable. We could do SHADOW MAN, NIGHT SKY MINE, TROUBLE AND HER FRIENDS ... Me, who probably just wants an excuse to reread TROUBLE... 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, 9 Aug 1998 10:39:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > I love WILD SEED and would love to discuss it, but kinda hate to do it by > default. And I know some people purchased SHADOW MAN successfully before it > disappeared. Would anyone be interested in a general Melissa Scott > discussion structured a little differently in October, rather than changing > books? Or would that just be too darn confusing? I wouldn't suggest this > for someone with a huge body of work, but I think hers might be managable. > We could do SHADOW MAN, NIGHT SKY MINE, TROUBLE AND HER FRIENDS ... I bought -Trouble and Her Friends- when I ordered -Shadow Man- because it was mentioned several times on this list. I wouldn't mind having a discussion of Melissa Scott's books. Is -Night Sky Mine- as difficult to find as SM seems to be? > Maryelizabeth Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 11:04:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: _I Who Have Never Known Men_ In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980808231332.3fd78f44@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Heather MacLean wrote: > by Jacqueline Harpman, 1995, trans. 1997 by Ros Schwartz from the French; a > sad little book, but very feminist according to all the hoopla we've been > having on the list. Very interesting, in fact (being French, very > philosophical)--has anybody else read this one, care to discuss it? > > Heather > =) > Heather, I just finished the Harpman novel this last Thursday. It was very sad, but at the same time, something of a tribute to the human ability to find hope in even the worst situation. It might be a good book group selection as it's currently available, at least in the U.S., from Avon Eos in a $3.99 paperback edition. SPOILERS ************************************************** Some plot points given away. One thing that fascinated me was the way the protagonist, the child, was able to essentially bootstrap herself into a mental state where she could feel some sense of triumph, first by trying to disconcert the guard by staring at him, and then defeating what appeared to be an intentional plot to keep them ignorant of how time was passing, by becoming an automatic counter and thereby discovering that the guards deliberately varied the time between meals and lights out. My wife, Sandra Lindow, who read the book before I did, and whose review of I Who Have Never Known Men will be appearing in the Science Fiction Research Association Review, believes that the child was autistic, whether from birth or as a result of traumas that occurred before she was imprisoned with the other women. Evidence--the automatic counting ability and her almost complete aversion to touch. She was also taken with the book's connections with Kafka's The Penal Colony. Any book like this, where we never get an explanation for events, would seem to lend itself to all sorts of symbolic and psychological interpretations. Why do all of the guards carry copies of a book on gardening? Why is the library full of books on aeronautics? What killed the bus-load of guards? Although I found the book fascinating and moving, I'm concrete enough so that I would have preferred to receive a few science fictional answers to the novel's mysteries. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:23:03 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG: Getting _Shadow Man_ - Survey In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 30 July I started a survey concerning _Shadow Man_ and promised to post the results last Friday. I was so busy last Friday that I have simply forgotten it. I am sorry. In the meanwhile Jennifer has changed the BDG schedule, so the survey results were obsolete. But as Maryelizabeth has raised the issue once more I decided to post them after all. Only 6 persons contacted me or send an email to the list. Only one of them does not have _Shadow Man_ yet. 6 is not a terrific return rate. Perhaps there are not so many list members who intend to participate in the BDG discussion on SM. Or October is so far away, that most people do not yet think about it. I think that list members outside North America who want to discuss the book are not so easy-going. From the 6 persons who contacted me only one was non-American and she (in Spain) had SM already. I myself have ordered it as a used book not quite 2 weeks ago and received it within a week! (I was quite astonished). IMHO people in North America have several possibilities to get a copy of SM (used books (see e.g. Bibliofind ), libraries, remaining copies in bookstores, inter-library loans) and the discussion does not necessarily have to be abandoned on that count. I also think that people who have bought the book already because of the BDG should not be disappointed (I am a bit selfish here :-) ). Personally, if SM is substituted by another book I'd prefer _Wild Seed_ as I have the book already ;-) while _Trouble and her friends_ I have to order and the whole trouble starts anew for me. Further points on getting SM: Terri Wakefield tried to get _Shadow Man_ from Amazon: > I have had the book on order since early June > from Amazon. I got a email from them 6/24 that it > would be an additional 4-6 weeks. On 30 Jul 98 Anne Vespry wrote: > I'd suggest checking your local lesbian/gay/feminist bookshop, they > tend to keep books on hand longer than regular or even science > fiction bookshops. For instance, I'm pretty sure I saw copies of > Shadow Man at GladDay in Toronto when I was there in early July. Sandy Candioglos wrote: > I'd be more than willing to send my copy to someone that can't find > it. I've already read it, and it's not one I feel any need to hang > on to. I could also go back to Powell's and see if they have any > more copies on the shelf. It's not listed on their online database > (www.powells.com), but I know there was more than one copy when I > bought mine last month. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:56:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I would also like to have the discussion of Shadow Man. Can we do both SM and Wild Seed at once? While I wouldn't mind a discussion of Scott's work in general - I think that Shadow is her most intriguing. sheryl > ---------- > From: Maryelizabeth Hart[SMTP:mystgalaxy@AX.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Sunday, August 09, 1998 3:20 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? > > Jennifer et al: > > I love WILD SEED and would love to discuss it, but kinda hate to do it > by > default. And I know some people purchased SHADOW MAN successfully > before it > disappeared. Would anyone be interested in a general Melissa Scott > discussion structured a little differently in October, rather than > changing > books? Or would that just be too darn confusing? I wouldn't suggest > this > for someone with a huge body of work, but I think hers might be > managable. > We could do SHADOW MAN, NIGHT SKY MINE, TROUBLE AND HER FRIENDS ... > > Me, who probably just wants an excuse to reread TROUBLE... > > > > > 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: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:59:53 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Donna Bursey Subject: Re: intermingled... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In Philip Jose Farmer's Dayworld series, he makes reference several times the way the world government has deliberately melded all the different races so that everyone has basically the same skin color, eye shape, etc. I have to agree, though, that variety makes for some very interesting and attractive people -- I like "blended" folks, but to have every blended into similarity would be pretty boring. Besides, being human beings, we would then base our "isms" on something other than race, class, nation, etc. Maybe -- those who like sparkly jewelry versus those who don't, or those who like cats versus those who like dogs -- who knows, but we'd find something! Donna (the third Donna) Bursey From: Laura Quilter on 08/07/98 06:59 PM GMT Please respond to "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU cc: Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] intermingled... ursula le guin has done some interesting stuff. (1) THE LATHE OF HEAVEN (book and then a pbs movie) has a number of possible worlds created including one in which there are no distinctive races (2) in one of her recent books - FOUR WAYS TO FORGIVENESS, maybe? - she has a race that keeps slaves. the two races are somehow supposed to look alike; at least they think so; but an outsider (one of the Ekumen i think) comments that the two that are supposedly so different are not really distinguishable to others. i.e. minute differences are heightened for social control i'm trying to think if octavia butler, in the XENOGENESIS trilogy, dealt with that. it was so long ago that i read it that i don't remember. but the human species is blending with another species, and race was unimportant. it caused some ruckus in the beginning of the first book as i recall but then humans turned their focus away from human race. sheri tepper's THE GATE TO WOMEN'S COUNTRY has breeding program that certainly worked against queers & violent men. don't remember if it was set up for race as well. i know there are other books i've read - more far future books - which set that up as a premise. but don't remember titles right now. i certainly know that the idea has been TALKED about a lot. i personally think it's not a pleasant idea. i love that we have many different skin tones, many types of hair, many heights, eye colors, body shapes. we should love and honor our diversity not seek to eliminate it. justice and avoidance of oppression are not going to happen because we eliminate some arbitrary categories of difference on which we presently base some injustices; but rather because we eliminate the systems of hierarchies which perpetuate injustices based on all manner of arbitrary categories. as rudy said, if we eliminate race, another distinction will quickly assume importance to people who want to foster oppressions ... On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Rudy Leon wrote: > Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 21:45:19 -0400 > From: Rudy Leon > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] intermingled... > > At 02:24 PM 8/6/98 CDT, you wrote: > >Has anyone ever read an SF book that posits a future in which the races > >have intermingled so much that the physical differences have > >homogenized out? Seems like an interesting idea. Of course, the characters > >would exhibit prejudice towards each other based on other criteria. . . . > > I am reading _Dazzle of Day_ right now, and in the 175 years on the ship, > the various peoples seem to be intermarried pretty completely (it helps > that regardless of nationality, they are all Quaker...). Would 7 > generations be enough, d'ya think? > > > Rudy Leon > Ph.D. candidate > Department of Religion > Syracuse University > releon@syr.edu > Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:57:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've got Shadow Man by interlibrary loan. Could that be an option for those who do not want to buy the hardcover? Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:10:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maryelizabeth, Petra, and others - Thanks for the feedback, and especially to Petra for her survey. I have two concerns about this -- first, long lead availability for non-US participants, and second, keeping prices to a reasonable level. It appears to me that Shadow Man is available in hardcover, but that's expensive. We can continue to discuss this for awhile, but if it's really going to take 4-6 weeks for some resellers to deliver, that's pushing the limits for discussion in the beginning of October. Perhaps I was not completely clear about why I substituted Wild Seed -- it was the book with the next highest amount of votes. This isn't exactly "by default", or perhaps I misunderstand your intention here. Since there are tons of books we could discuss, it seems better to go with something else rather than go to pains to get a particular book. Hopefully Shadow Man will become available again later. I certainly hoped to discuss it. I'd love to talk about any of Scott's books as I'm a huge fan (OK, so I won't be completely neutral in the discussions!). Trouble would be a good one, as we periodically have "what is cyberpunk" come up as a topic, and that might prove as fruitful in generating discussion as "what is feminist" has been. We may have run Alien Influences through its course at this point, and have three weeks left of August. Perhaps we should start discussing one or all of Scott's books now? This might be a good time to see how a general author discussion rather than a particular book discussion works on this list. Jennifer At 08:20 AM 08/09/98 +0100, Maryelizabeth wrote: >Jennifer et al: > >I love WILD SEED and would love to discuss it, but kinda hate to do it by >default. And I know some people purchased SHADOW MAN successfully before it >disappeared. Would anyone be interested in a general Melissa Scott >discussion structured a little differently in October, rather than changing >books? Or would that just be too darn confusing? I wouldn't suggest this >for someone with a huge body of work, but I think hers might be managable. >We could do SHADOW MAN, NIGHT SKY MINE, TROUBLE AND HER FRIENDS ... > >Me, who probably just wants an excuse to reread TROUBLE... > > > > >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: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:04:49 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joslyn Grassby Subject: Homogenization of humanity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit M. A. Foster wrote an interesting trilogy, "Gameplayers of Zan", "Warriors of Dawn", and "Day of the Klesh". (These still surface in secondhand bookstores and are eminently worth reading.) The first book is set on an overpopulated earth, whose only distinctions seem to be geopolitical, rather than racial or cultural. Foster introduces the ler, who are a sort of quantum jump in evolutionary terms, but created in the lab. In the second book, set much later, an isolated (and deteriorating) group of ler have used human stock in a breeding program to produce radically different strains of humans. In the third book, the human race has grown largely homogenized and has settled to an undisturbed existence only to rediscover the planet to which the wildly differing types of human were moved. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:17:55 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: October BDG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would much, much, much rather have a general discussion of Melissa Scott's work rather than going to a completely different author. I gave my copy of Shadow Man to a friend after reading it, but I just finished Night Sky Mine. It's been a long time since I read any Butler, and am not particularly looking forward to switching gears and doing re-reads. Sharon Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:19:40 -0500 Reply-To: mcg.home@worldnet.att.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Charles and/or Rose McGuire Subject: Melissa Scoot MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mary Elizabeth et al: I would also like to discuss Melissa Scott, especially since TROUBLE AND HER FRIENDS is on my tbr pile, close to the top. Rose ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:14:13 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: BDG Character gender/feminism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Schebel wrote: > I guess what I'm trying to say is that if an author comes out and > distintcly says "this character is white/black/hispanic, whatever", I lose > a little bit of interest. I would rather the author describe the look of > the character, or not at all--let the reader decide. I understand your point. However, as someone from an obviously ethnic background, I very much appreciate characterization that makes no bones about a successful, admirable character being other than the standard. It has the same reaffirming qualities for me as does reading about strong female characters I can admire. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:54:38 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anita Easton Subject: Re: alternative to BDG for SHADOW MAN? In-Reply-To: Jennifer Krauel's message of "Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:10:02 -0700" Jennifer Krauel writes: > Thanks for the feedback, and especially to Petra for her survey. I have > two concerns about this -- first, long lead availability for non-US > participants, and second, keeping prices to a reasonable level. It appears > to me that Shadow Man is available in hardcover, but that's expensive. We > can continue to discuss this for awhile, but if it's really going to take > 4-6 weeks for some resellers to deliver, that's pushing the limits for > discussion in the beginning of October. I received _Shadow Man_ from Book Express (www.bookexpress.com) last week and read it over the weekend (and loved it :). It was trade paperback and US$5.96 + postage. It too 7-ish weeks to make it to here (New Zealand) surface mail. Anita ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:31:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Dont go yet.....on AI MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yikes, 10 August and we are done already.....I was still wrestling vigorously with KKR's story. Here is a sketch of where I am at. Offered so that I dont feel like I bruised my brain for nuthin'. I see this book as a dystopia without question. It seemed to me that all the worst ills of our current world were extended to the future and intensified or expanded. The blindness and indifference to the suffering of children; the cold brutality of social institutions originally designed to benefit ordinary people; the ferocious unquenchable appetite for profits by megapolitic corporations; the insatiable craving for anesthetizing chemicals to interrupt the unremitting horror of daily life; etc. etc. The above made this book extremely difficult reading for me. There was no place to get a breather. I cannot decide how I feel about Rusch's writing in general. Though I can circle around some items that did not sit well: - the children were "alien influenced"......okay.....and it seemed to me that she was taking it even further. The entire community was "alien influenced" in the way that it ignored their "useless" children as the Dancers ignored their "useless" young. The hitch for me is that the Dancers did not violently torture their young. So the analogy fell apart. But then how to explain why no one but, or until, these children tried to escape the horrors by going to the Dancers? Or anyone for that matter. And, if every child desperately ached to leave the planet, and presumably some did (Anita), hence escaping the horrendous abuse, why did no one ever, over the life of this colony, TELL SOMEONE what was going on until the murders? And how could the outsiders who came to study the Dancers not have seen what was going on in regard to the addiction to Juice and the abuse, etc ,etc? And why _didn't_ the investigation ask the obvious question? This was the most contrived piece of all. The world's horror at the crimes implied that there still existed a belief in the innocence of children, but no one asked what made them do it? That omission alone made the book implausible to me. Too many convenient silences and inexplicable responses. - Into this unrelenting dystopia, we see the few almost noble folks (nobleness measured only by the amount of time they _think_ about the children, not by any actions they take) conveniently and at the same time, decide to go against a lifetimes of resolve that the children were dangerous AI killers. I am speaking of Justin and Dania. This in the midst of evidence that there were more murders? Why ask why now? After all but one of the children is dead? We are shown no cause for the shift in thinking within the created world. What? One bodean genie is able to change the myopic minds of an entire society in one trial after 20 odd years? - And lets talk about God's angel......I mean the genie. The bodean genies are omniscient, able to exist in any form and able to explain the inexplicable. Hmmm sounds familiar to me. Okay, fine. Christian paradigm. No problem. The genie says at the end he could have made the jury believe whatever story was told and had John freed. What???????? A Deus ex machine? So this whole story is for what? ...Johns object lesson in the nature of humanity? Certainly this would explain the extreme abuse suffered upon the other children. This was only Johns story. The other children were expendable characters. - And the biggest implausibility of all......John choosing not to join the others in "heaven". I am to believe that a man who: spent his first 10-12 yrs suffering unmentionable abuses, spent 6-8 years under brutally hard labor and complete isolation, spent another dozen or so yrs being despised, disbelieved and hunted by an entire society, observes/discovers that the only beings he cares about throughout his entire life all die in the deepest anguish after their own lives of horror, abuse and terror (again on the part of said society) and is finally only "saved" by the statements of an alien creature that reveals it had this power all along.......this man decides to stay and "be fully human"?????????? WTFO? Based on _what_ example of humanity was he choosing to stay, when what he was presented as the alternative, by his own admission, would feel like heaven? AND moreso, he chose against joining with the 7 other children that he was supposedly so attached to that each could not live without the others. That was the biggest rip-off of all. The central premise gets completely put aside at the end for no apparent reason. We are shown over 340+ pages everything about this "alien" loving bond between the children, so potent, empowering and seductive that they committed horrific murders together, this 'alien' bond that was not available to them with any other person, or in any other way, anywhere in the world, this 'alien' bond that _was_ re-attainable in their brilliant light of "death". This bond is rejected by the 'head child', who spent the entire story overwhelmed with guilt for the sufferings of the other children, who was driven by the deepest anguish to be together again, who lived in total inhuman isolation for years in a desperate hope to bond again? He rejects all of _this_ to go be "fully human" in a world utterly devoid of any humanity? I don't buy it. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:49:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: schant Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit donna simone wrote: > And, if every child desperately ached to leave the planet, and > presumably some did (Anita), hence escaping the horrendous abuse, why > did no one ever, over the life of this colony, TELL SOMEONE what was > going on until the murders? And how could the outsiders who came to > study the Dancers not have seen what was going on in regard to the > addiction to Juice and the abuse, etc ,etc? And why _didn't_ the > investigation ask the obvious question? This was the most contrived > piece of all. The world's horror at the crimes implied that > there still existed a belief in the innocence of children, but no one > asked what made them do it? That omission alone made the book > implausible to me. Too many convenient silences and inexplicable responses. I've not read the book, but this bit just rang a bell with a program on UK TV last night (Monday 10th August). It was about the famous Kinsey report on male sexuality published in the 1940's and how a section of it supposedly illustrating childhood sexuality was taken from the detailed diaries provided to Kinsey by a child-abuser. Former colleagues and a current worker at the Kinsey Institute, when asked why the abuser - and others they had corresponded with - had not been reported to the police had a variety of responses along the lines of "We got this information by giving promises of confidentiality", "It's better to have this information than not to have it", "No-one encouraged people to do these things, we only took data from them". I'm not sure how true this story is, not being a great believer in the veracity of the Media, but perhaps this attitude is partly what is being shown by in AI? SC -- "Take what you want", said God. "Take it - and pay for it." Old Spanish proverb, quoted in "South Riding" by Winifred Holtby ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 06:10:44 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: SHADOW MAN, Sneeches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Petra, et al: I didn't mean to confuse. I thought perhaps instead of a Melissa Scott discussion solely focusing on SHADOW MAN in the tradition of our previous discussions, we could do a number of her books. That way those who have SHADOW MAN could participate, and those who missed it coulld discuss some of the themes and ideas which are in SM and MS's other works. Like Jennifer, I want this to be as easy for as many list members as possible. ~~~~~ Re: Discrimination without races. For some reason Donna Bursey's comment made me think of those "With stars upon thars..." Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:24:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI In-Reply-To: <000501bdc51b$a5fdbb60$deae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, donna simone wrote: (snip) > - the children were "alien influenced"......okay.....and it seemed to me > that she was taking it even further. The entire community was "alien > influenced" in the way that it ignored their "useless" children as the > Dancers ignored their "useless" young. The hitch for me is that the > Dancers did not violently torture their young. So the analogy fell > apart. The children were "alien influenced" but not in the way that everyone wanted to believe. The "alien influence" was merely an excuse to cover up what really happened. The children killed their friends because of the -human- horror that they were trying to escape. > But then how to explain why no one but, or until, these children > tried to escape the horrors by going to the Dancers? Or anyone for that > matter. And, if every child desperately ached to leave the planet, and > presumably some did (Anita), hence escaping the horrendous abuse, why > did no one ever, over the life of this colony, TELL SOMEONE what was > going on until the murders? When a society is in denial, "telling someone" is unthinkable. Even today, with so many resources to protect abused children, it still happens. And many people -still- doubt that it happens to "good" families. Also, most of the people who managed to escape from the colony, including Anita, did so as adults. It was mentioned several times that Salt Juice only effected adults and not children. Perhaps many of these adults suffered the same kind of self centered brain damage as those that stayed behind. Maybe it never occurred to them to help the children left behind. (snip) > And how could the outsiders who came to study the Dancers not have seen > what was going on in regard to the addiction to Juice and the abuse, etc > ,etc? And why _didn't_ the investigation ask the obvious question? This > was the most contrived piece of all. When I was in my teens, I lived down the street from a nice family. They lived in a nice house and were nice people. Occasionally, I would smell alcohol on the breath of the stepfather at noon but he wasn't drunk or even tipsy. He treated his stepchildren very well but something about the situation made me uneasy. One day the mother came home early from work and found her husband in bed with her children. He had been sexually abusing them for months. Did I even suspect what was going on? No. I didn't even have a clue. Everything, on the surface, looked fine. No one in the entire neighborhood even suspected that the nice man next door was abusing his stepchildren. It doesn't seem the least implausible to me that no one would even wonder if something was going on. As for the investigators, they never really had the chance to ask the right questions before the children were shipped off. There was too much at stake for the government to allow a full investigation. > The world's horror at the crimes implied that there still existed a > belief in the innocence of children, but no one asked what made them do > it? That omission alone made the book implausible to me. Too many > convenient silences and inexplicable responses. It was mentioned several times that there had been four studies on the effects of Salt Juice on users. All of these studies had been suppressed. Why? Money. Everyone was making too much money off of Salt Juice to even want to look to closely at what it would do to users. The murders were blamed on "alien influences" instead of the detrimental effects of Salt Juice on those who used it. The government had a stake in covering up the truth. (snip) > - And lets talk about God's angel......I mean the genie. The bodean > genies are omniscient, able to exist in any form and able to explain the > inexplicable. Hmmm sounds familiar to me. Okay, fine. Christian > paradigm. No problem. The genie says at the end he could have made the > jury believe whatever story was told and had John freed. What???????? A > Deus ex machine? So this whole story is for what? ...Johns object lesson > in the nature of humanity? Certainly this would explain the extreme > abuse suffered upon the other children. This was only Johns story. The > other children were expendable characters. The Bodeangenie was probably the least satisfactory part of the book. It really did skirt too close to being a deus ex machine for my taste. Too many loose ends were tied up my waving the magic Bodeangenie wand. > - And the biggest implausibility of all......John choosing not to join > the others in "heaven" (snip)...this man decides to stay and "be fully > human"?????????? WTFO? Based on _what_ example of humanity was he > choosing to stay, when what he was presented as the alternative, by his > own admission, would feel like heaven? (snip) This bond is rejected > by the 'head child', who spent the entire story overwhelmed with guilt > for the sufferings of the other children, who was driven by the deepest > anguish to be together again, who lived in total inhuman isolation for > years in a desperate hope to bond again? He rejects all of _this_ to go > be "fully human" in a world utterly devoid of any humanity? I found this a little hard to believe also. The book ends rather abruptly and too much of the plot is magically resolved by the genie. Maybe he chose to remain human because he had never despaired enough to take his own life or make the transition to a "ghost" like the others. He had also had a second exposure to the Dancers during his adulthood and realized what they were attempting to do with the human children. His trust in the Dancers had been broken. Maybe he wasn't ready to become a ghost. The door was left open for him to change his mind. > I don't buy it. > > donna > donnaneely@earthlink.net > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:28:19 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI In-Reply-To: <000501bdc51b$a5fdbb60$deae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: donna simone [mailto:donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:32 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Dont go yet.....on AI > > And, if every child > desperately ached to leave the planet, and presumably some > did (Anita), hence escaping the horrendous abuse, why did no one ever, > over the life of this colony, TELL SOMEONE what was going on > until the murders? And how could the outsiders who came to study the > Dancers not have seen what was going on in regard to the > addiction to Juice and the abuse, etc ,etc? And why _didn't_ the > investigation ask the obvious question? This was the most > contrived piece of all. The world's horror at the crimes implied that > there still existed a belief in the innocence of children, > but no one asked what made them do it? That omission alone > made the book > implausible to me. Too many convenient silences and > inexplicable responses. Another reason that nobody who escaped "told anybody", might be because this is the first group of kids that has been neglected to the point of not even having a school. It was worse for this group than it had been for any other group before. Maybe the situation wasn't so bad for the earlier groups of kids that they felt it necessary to "tell" anybody. After all, most of them stayed there (the colony's been around 100 years or so, right?). The only thing that bugged me about this book that you didn't bring up, Donna, is: what about the "souls" of the kids who died on Bountiful? Maybe I missed a reference or something, but the only ones who were "saved" were the 8 (well, minus John) who made it off the planet; wouldn't they want to go get Katie and Michael and the others with the little jars, too? -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:32:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI In-Reply-To: <000501bdc51b$a5fdbb60$deae2499@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII hey Donna it's funny how the discussion about AI pretty much wound up so fast. What it seems to me, the views on the book turned out so opposite that there was little possibility for real discussion. Maybe because the difference in opinions came about mainly from the differences in people's views, and most people realize that they cannot make others change their mind about the world. However, since we are still in the time frame for discussing AI, I'd like to do it a little more. Besides, I think Donna kind of summarized the common problems people had with the book and did an excellent job at that. I want to point out right away that even though I loved the book, I recognize and respect the right of those who did not like it to do so. These are just my thoughts. On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, donna simone wrote: > - the children were "alien influenced"......okay.....and it seemed to me that she was taking it even further. The entire community > was "alien influenced" in the way that it ignored their "useless" children as the Dancers ignored their "useless" young. The hitch > for me is that the Dancers did not violently torture their young. So the analogy fell apart. To me, the point Rusch was making was that the children were not "alien influenced" at all. It was just a convenient explanation made up by the society to "explain out" their actions of despair. It was a lot easier to say that the kids "under influence" than to deal with the fact that there could be something in their lives to drive them into these actions. It's always easier to blame aliens than to deal with the problems of the society, you know. > But then how to explain why no one > but, or until, these children tried to escape the horrors by going to the Dancers? Or anyone for that matter. I think it was mentioned a few times that some people (including adults) in fact did exactly that. Remember the book mentioning that the local school ceased to exist after the last teacher they had went to live with Dancers (or something like that)? There are also references to other children who got engaged with Dancers and committed the same kind of "murders" at the very beginning of the colony's existance. If I remember well, back at the time of the salt mines (long before the Salt Juice was discovered) the miners' colony tried to slaughter the Dancers because they started finding "murdered" children who had been working at the mines. It was also mentioned that the planet's police chief (or whatever was his title) had killed a person for the first time when confronted with some of those "children" -- already very old -- having a "reunion" at the local bar. It seems to me that these incidents with human children mutilating each other had been happening since the beginning of this colony. It was simply ignored and possibly covered up, in order not to jeopardize the Salt Juice production. That could be part of the reason why (besides the effects of the Salt Juice itself) none of the parents except one expressed any grief or even surprise when faced with their children's murders. It was probably something they grew up seeing all the time. The book also mentions that there were human "ghosts" in the jars Dancers possessed. So it's quite possible that besides the adults -- like the last school teacher who joined the dancers voluntarily (damn it, I don't know how to spell this word!) -- and the children like Anita who had been lured into becoming a ghost, but unlike her did not manage to escape, there had been kids who transformed into their adult state through the mutilations and were assimilated by the Dancers. I know this is a lot of assumptions. However, to me this comes directly from the book's context. And at any rate, the point I am trying to make is that the Dancer Eight were not by any means the first ones who did what they did. The difference was that at the time they did it, the colonists had just discovered the way to grow the Salt Juice plants, and therefore needed to get rid of the Dancers. So the possibly routine "child murders" that had been ignored for the previous hundred years were this time used as an excuse to exterminate the Dancers. People at the colony were not shocked by the murders. For them, it seemed to be a part of life. It's possible that they knew the children were not really dead. But the colony authorities were aware that to the "outside world", these incidents would be seen as unspeakable atrocities. They could not just slaughter the Dancers without having to explain it to the planet's authorities. So they found the perfect excuse. The whole "investigation" by the psychologist was just a cover-up show. Had the colonists not discovered the way to grow the plants, the information about the dead children would have never left the colony. And, if every child > desperately ached to leave the planet, and presumably some did (Anita), hence escaping the horrendous abuse, why did no one ever, > over the life of this colony, TELL SOMEONE what was going on until the murders? I think the explanation could be very simple. Why people today, when escaping horrible conditions in certain countries almost never talk about it? There is something very close to legalized genocide of women going on in Tajikistan where I came from. Right now. (You can find out more about it from my web page -- address at the bottom). And you know what? Despite the fact that about 1 million people had escaped the country over the past 8 years, I seem to be the only one who even _tries_ to make it known to the outside world. I've been searching for months about any information on this matter -- in libraries, on the Net, everywhere. All I found so far I put on my website -- like, a couple of personal testimonies and one Voice of America interview of the Human Rights Watch member. Who later refused to make a personal statement about it for "diplomatic (read political) reasons". She still "feels bad" about the situation of women there, she just won't go on record with it. The way I see it -- people who had gone though horrors try to forget it like a nightmare. Those who are still going through it, try not to think about it. If the female half of one million of a country's refugees never open their mouth about what they had went through until they are specifically asked, I can very well believe that those from the book's colony, once grown up, would either accept their childhood experiences as a "part of life" or simply forget about it as thoroughly as they could. Cause this is how people avoid going insane. >And how could the outsiders who came to study the > Dancers not have seen what was going on in regard to the addiction to Juice and the abuse, etc ,etc? I might be wrong, but I think no one really studied the Dancers. Except those people from Alien Aliance, or whatever it was called. And those had their political agenda on their hands. > And why _didn't_ the > investigation ask the obvious question? This was the most contrived piece of all. The world's horror at the crimes implied that > there still existed a belief in the innocence of children, but no one asked what made them do it? That omission alone made the book > implausible to me. Too many convenient silences and inexplicable responses. I thought these attitudes were quite natural. I don't want to repeat myself, but I have not seen anyone so far really questioning why so many US kids went on a shooting spree lately. Instead, what I've heard just yesterday on CNN, the prosecution swore to the public that they'll be tried as adults and "put away for good". To protect the society. I'm sorry, but how can anyone in the right state of mind can consider a 9-year-old a regular maniac killer? So honestly, I find it quite likely that people in the future would not have much more sense than they do now. > - Into this unrelenting dystopia, we see the few almost noble folks (noble\ness measured only by the amount of time they _think_ > about the children, not by any actions they take) conveniently and at the same time, decide to go against a lifetimes of resolve > that the children were dangerous AI killers. I am speaking of Justin and Dania. This in the midst of evidence that there were more > murders? Why ask why now? After all but one of the children is dead? We are shown no cause for the shift in thinking within the > created world. What? One bodean genie is able to change the myopic minds of an entire society in one trial after 20 odd years? I think it could be explained by the fact that people usually think what "everyone thinks" until someone comes up with something different, and if they like it, it becomes a new "common knowledge". Humans are herdal animals, and very few of them bother to think for themselves. That's why this list is such a breath of fresh air :). > - And lets talk about God's angel......I mean the genie. The bodean genies are omniscient, able to exist in any form and able to > explain the inexplicable. Hmmm sounds familiar to me. Okay, fine. Christian paradigm. No problem. The genie says at the end he could > have made the jury believe whatever story was told and had John freed. What???????? A Deus ex machine? So this whole story is for > what? ...Johns object lesson in the nature of humanity? Certainly this would explain the extreme abuse suffered upon the other > children. This was only Johns story. The other children were expendable characters. You might be right, even though it's not the way I saw it. It's interesting, but it seemed that in this book, the bodeangenie was the only one who was able to see things the way they were. The critical mind, you know. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that it was -- well -- non-physical. It did not have a body, so it was able to have a free mind. I believe it's some kind of a heresy by the feminist standards, so I can see why a lot of people would dislike it. Concerning the genie's statement that it'd make the jury believe anything, I can see how it was possible. The genie was a telepath. You won't believe how many times I got myself out of trouble (and how many "A"'s I got in high school when called to the classboard, or the interviews that I passed OK) just because I knew precisely what the other person wanted me to say. And I'm not even a telepath, I just spent too much time trying to figure out why people around me acted the way they did... It's like playing chess with a person by reading your best possible next move from their mind. I cannot do that, but the genie probably could. It would have gotten John off at the trial in no time. > - And the biggest implausibility of all......John choosing not to join the others in "heaven". It's funny, but it reminded me of the Fairy Island in the Mists of Avalon. It was pretty much the same scheme -- a place with no worries, no sickness or death, filled with esquisite (another word I don't know how to spell) wisdom and eternal partying. I was thinking that if I was Morgaine, I would have never left the place. With the bodeangenie planet, however, it seemed different to me. I don't know, I think it has something to do with the physical existance. The genie was basically a soul, so were the dead friends of John (I do think they were dead, at least they were definitely not alive in the human sense). John had a body, and I would not give up mine, either, for all the heavens of the universe, at least as long as I live. No matter how much I suffer emotionally (it could be different if I had cancer or some other physical pain). Our souls might exist forever, but our bodies are given for a short time, so you cannot throw it around just to "be with your friends". Most people are very attached to their bodies, even when they are dissatisfied with them. Yeah, it's nice to be able to float around and never need food or drink or sleep, never feel pain or cold. But unless you are dead and have no choice, it's still better to be able to feel things. Like the taste of wine, the warmth of of the sunshine, the touch of another human body... Even Jesus (for those who believe in the guy) did not particularly want to die on the cross. Even though He knew that after a few unpleasant hours, He'll live forever. And rule the Universe, instead of wondering through the desert, begging for food, and sufferring abuse from exactly the people He was trying to help. He still wanted to live. There is something about physical existance that even Gods do not want to give it up. Well, going back to John... I am to believe that a man who: spent > his first 10-12 yrs suffering unmentionable abuses, spent 6-8 years under brutally hard labor and complete isolation, spent another > dozen or so yrs being despised, disbelieved and hunted by an entire society, observes/discovers that the only beings he cares about > throughout his entire life all die in the deepest anguish after their own lives of horror, abuse and terror (again on the part of > said society) and is finally only "saved" by the statements of an alien creature that reveals it had this power all along.......this > man decides to stay and "be fully human"?????????? WTFR? Well, his friends were dead, whatever was their new existance, he was not able to fully share it. After all, only Beth even bothered to say goodbye to him. They were no longer the children that desperately needed each other, they were not even humans anymore, so there was no reason, in my opinion, for him to throw away his own life in order to stay around them. John has done his job. He recovered his friends' souls and found them a nice place. He pretty much cleared up his name concerning the murders that were haunting him. He discovered that after all, he was not a killer or the monster people had considered him to be throughout his life. He has learned to live on his own without being constantly around his friends -- he had needed it as a child to compensate for the lack of love from his parents, but there is no reason for an adult to be so emotionally dependent. He found out the truth about the Dancers who turned out not to care about him and others any more than their parents had, but simply tried to lure them into death and use their souls for their own purposes. The guy has finally grown up and got rid of both his illusions and the guilt that had been haunting him for years. He finally got a chance to leave behind all the emotional baggage of the past and start a life of his own, for a change. Why would he throw it away for a prospect of living among the ghosts? He could always go there after he died. John had fulfilled his duty towards his friends, and now he deserved a life of his own. I would not give up a chance like that either, for all the heavens in the world... I loved this book, Alien Influences, for many reasons. One of them being the fact that it pictures the world the way it is -- not any better, not any worse. I don't believe that humans in general in the future are going to be any more wise, altruistic, ar even rational than they are now. IMHO, there will be intelligent people, open-minded people, generous people, and at the same time plenty of greedy, obnoxious idiots, just as there are now. The ratio between those might change, but as long as humans remain humans, they'll be imperfect. And IMHO, it's not the end of the world. It's kind of what makes it interesting. I don't consider this book a dystopia. It's just a realistic view of the world, without any illogical attempts to make it more "correct" by some magic of time. It gives me the hope that no matter how fucked up and full of shit are the people you have to deal with throughout your life, there is still a chance for you to survive and prevail. Despite everything. I found this book very positive and inspirational. Not irritatingly naive, as most sf -- and especially fantasy -- books are. It shows that one has a chance in the world the way it is. Which I find very important. I liked Alien Influences more than all the others I read for this book discussion group so far. Among all, because it's so beautifully written. Of course, all this is only my opinion. As I said, I respect all the others. What I do is trying to explain why I think this book is so great. Regards :), Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:52:43 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI Comments: To: Sandy Candioglos In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > The only thing that bugged me about this book that you didn't bring up, > Donna, is: what about the "souls" of the kids who died on Bountiful? Maybe > I missed a reference or something, but the only ones who were "saved" were > the 8 (well, minus John) who made it off the planet; wouldn't they want to > go get Katie and Michael and the others with the little jars, too? I seems like it was possible only when the person went through a certain ritual (with their eyes turning into the silver light and everything). The person had to do it consciously, knowing that he/she was dying and wanting it. The children that had their body parts cut out did not try to die. They tried to grow up, which was prevented from happening by the other children's belief that nothing could grow in the cold of the morgue's freezer. After all, it was all powered by beliefs. Since those children did not go through the "silvering" stage, their souls did not "escape" to be put into a jar. I would think that those cut-up kids were still alive by the end of the story (and I bet no one had ever bothered to take them out of the morgue). Which is why I really expected them to be found by John -- alive -- by the end of the book. That was the only dissappointment I had with the plot. At the same time, face it -- how many children abused so terribly ever survive for a long time? In that context, the fact that at least one of 14 made it through and was able to get over it is pretty optimistic. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:30:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII By the way, what did y'all think about the part about the kid that was two years younger than the others? He who was totally rejected not only by his family but also by the other children -- those who themselves were going through terrible abuse and should have known better? I really liked how that part dealt with the so-popular "consolation" that "people should accept you for who you are". For what it's worth. With all the horrors these children were going through, they at least had each other. That little kid was denied even that, just because he was two years younger. Can you imagine going through all that alone? With the only people who could give you support refusing even to talk to you, despite all their understanding and support of each other. And I don't remember any of them ever expressing a trace of remorse over the way they had treated him... I think it could be a pretty good explanation why no one who had gone through abuse as a child on that planet ever tried to do anything about it when grown up. Even these kids dissociated themselves with someone of "another generation" -- be it only two years younger. It's quite possible that if grown up into regular adult colonists, they'd have either left the planet without giving a thought to the children in their situation left behind, or stay and abuse their own kids without seeing any connection with their own past suffering. Especially with all that Salt Juice... Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:49:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Shadow Man Availability Well, it's probably too late for this, but I contacted Bookexpress and they have 31 copies of Shadow Man available for $7.99 plus shipping in paperback and possibly still 2 hard back copies for $5.99. Most of the sellers in Bibliofind also have it for about $20.00 plus shipping, except for the Common Reader which seems to be out. I'd love to discuss an Octavia Butler book, so I don't at all mind the substitution, but if we start this early maybe enough of us could get Shadow Man that we can discuss it some time in the future. Joyce http://www.bookexpress.com/ begin 666 Book Express on Line - Internet's Biggest Discount Store.url M6TEN=&5R;F5T4VAO Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Backlog/New books... In-Reply-To: from "Maryelizabeth Hart" at Aug 9, 98 08:20:28 am Content-Type: text I finally drug myself out to Barnes and Noble and had a listserv buying spree (for those who are interested, I got Six Moon Dance, Primary Inversion, Alien Influences, and Halfway Human). Of course, now I'm rueing the day that I deleted all the discussio n about Alien Influences. Is there a backlog or archive available for me to go back and look at after I finish the book? Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:55:12 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Comments: cc: otaking@otaking.org In-Reply-To: from "Maryelizabeth Hart" at Aug 9, 98 08:20:28 am Content-Type: text After my lovely trip to the bookstore today, my fiance (who's absolutely in love with Star Trek) and I were sitting in the car, as I tried once again to convince him to read some of the books I've been reading recently. I mentioned that I had just finished Dreamsnake by Vonda McIntyre, and he chortled merrily and mentioned that she had written the novelizations for three of the Star Trek movies. After we got home, he was showing off two of his new books (one of which is the Captain's Table book about Ben Sisko from DS9.) He mentioned the authors (Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch), and I was the one to chortle this time, as I handed over Alien Influences. Now, here's my question. Is Star Trek feminist? Or, more specifically, is writing Star Trek and writing books like Alien Influences and Dreamsnake a contradiction? I haven't read the two Trek books by McIntyre and Rusch, but I've placed them on my to be read list. -Stephanie Jackson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:09:21 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/98 2:48:16 AM, you wrote: <> Good heavens... why a contradiction? writers write. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:10:10 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Feminist sf writers such as Vonda McIntyre have been known to write STAR TREK novels, in part because they have to eat, but perhaps also in part because they, like Joe Haldeman when he wrote his, they hoped to enlarge the ST universe in noble directions. Dunno, since I've never read an ST novel, if they succeeded. But the "underground" ST fiction, particularly (as Joanna Russ points out in an essay in MAGIC MOMMAS, TREMBLING SISTERS, PURITANS & PERVERTS) the Kirk/Spock porn that was (and is?) overwhelmingly women's work, can definitely be seen to have a feminist intent, however deeply disguised or convolutedly diverted. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:30:42 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Comments: cc: otaking@otaking.org In-Reply-To: <67a75837.35d10762@aol.com> from "Phoebe Wray" at Aug 11, 98 11:09:21 pm Content-Type: text > > In a message dated 8/12/98 2:48:16 AM, you wrote: > > < Influences and Dreamsnake a contradiction?>> > > Good heavens... why a contradiction? writers write. > > best > phoebe > Not entirely what I'm getting at. I'm just curious as to whether the people on the list think that writing in a feminist-based universe and writing Star Trek are different things. As in, when I first thought of it, I felt like I had just found out that Hemingway wrote lesbian erotica. (Please don't tell me he does, I couldn't take the shock). AFter reading several STar Trek books, mostly due to being broke and having nothing else to read, I think I have to disagree with my original conclusion. 'Trek novels and the series can be boring, banal, and absolute irritating at times, but there is a grandiose theme of equality between peoples of Earth and peoples of the stars that I find warming. Any other thoughts on the subject? -Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:36:30 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Content-Type: text My fiance wanted to comment too, but he's not on the list. :) Forwarded message: > From otaking@otaking.org Tue Aug 11 20:34:20 1998 > Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980811203142.006f7a88@otaking> > X-Sender: otaking@otaking > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:31:43 -0700 > To: Stephanie Jackson , > otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) > From: "Michael D. Garcia" > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > At 08:24 PM 8/11/98 -0700, Stephanie Jackson wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >>From owner-feministsf@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Aug 11 20:23:38 1998 > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58 > >Message-ID: <2bf89315.35d10798@aol.com> > >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:10:10 EDT > >Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > > > >Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > > > >From: Todd Mason > >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... > >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > > > >Feminist sf writers such as Vonda McIntyre have been known to write STAR TREK > >novels, in part because they have to eat, but perhaps also in part because > > Peter David once commented that writing ST didn't do /anything/ to his > income, as with most writers of 'series' or other types of SciFi. As a > matter of fact, writers such as Melinda Snodgrass, Peter David, and a few > others have turned to writing for TV to put food on the table. (Melinda > wrote TNG, Peter David wrote Babylon 5 ;) > > >they, like Joe Haldeman when he wrote his, they hoped to enlarge the ST > >universe in noble directions. Dunno, since I've never read an ST novel, if > >they succeeded. But the "underground" ST fiction, particularly (as Joanna > Russ > > Well... Vonda's portrayal of the movies was /incredible/. Whether they > pushed toward a feministic vantage wasn't made clear to me when reading. > Rusch, on the other hand, portrays strong women characters with her > co-writer Dean Wesley Smith in Voyager settings. I'm not sure if Ann > Crispin could be considered a feminist SF writer, but her Trek books were > brilliantly written. All in all, while I'm a big fan of the genre, I tend > to read a Trek book than watch an episode... and my favorite Trek authors > are mostly women (Jean Lorrah, A.C. Crispin, Rusch, Melinda Snodgrass, > Diane Duane, McIntrye, Margaret Bonano, and Barbara Hambly). > > MDg > > > > +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ > | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | > | way of sometimes coming true." | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:44:32 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit OK, here is 2cents from the old geezer. In 1967 (this was just at the time color television was becoming affordable...but just before the time that the colors stayed put rather than blending and ghosting about some), Star Trek did weird stuff like have a black woman as a competent character. When the show canceled, an underground of trekkies started writing stories for themselves, and the first stories broke a lot of rules. Some of the earlier ST has some of the best female characters we had ever read about. It is pretty tame compared to today, but, hey, it was groundshaking at the time. And a lot of the good stuff was written by women. I don't really think ST was feminist, but I do know that it offered options and role models at a time when some of us were just waking up to the need for options and rm's. A couple of years ago, though, a friend of mine and I stopped buying the books because it felt like they were being book-milled rather than written, and that the publishers were taking advantage of the 'collectable" aspect of the works. I am really glad to be on this list. You folks have cued me in to some fantastic books! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:49:29 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/98 3:33:05 AM, Stephanie wrote: <> Agreed. They strike me as cartoons -- and one goes elsewhere for larger themes. Many many people are addicted to the Trek phenom... and I think, in the long run, that is good, because of the "equality" it seems to support. I haven't watched much ST since Bablyon5 came around, which strikes me as having better scripts and a more interesting attitude towards "The Other." best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:07:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... In-Reply-To: from "Phoebe Wray" at Aug 11, 98 11:49:29 pm Content-Type: text > > In a message dated 8/12/98 3:33:05 AM, Stephanie wrote: > > < times, but there is a grandiose theme of equality between peoples of Earth and > peoples of the stars that I find warming. Any other thoughts on the > subject?>> > > Agreed. They strike me as cartoons -- and one goes elsewhere for larger > themes. Many many people are addicted to the Trek phenom... and I think, in > the long run, that is good, because of the "equality" it seems to support. I > haven't watched much ST since Bablyon5 came around, which strikes me as having > better scripts and a more interesting attitude towards "The Other." > > best > phoebe > A long time ago, I seperated books into 'bathtub reading' and 'real reading'. The former being most mass produced paperbacks available in airport bookstores that provide a lot of entertainment but don't leave me with any thing to think about afterwards. I read these type of books avidly, for times when I want entertainment without too much mental work. However, the books on this list and the ones that I re-read over and over again provide entertainment while dealing with issues that I like, offering a different point of view on life, a different way of seeing things. 99% of the Star Trek books that I've read fit comfortably in the bathtub reading genre. -Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:08:39 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From otaking@otaking.org Tue Aug 11 21:07:55 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980811210516.006fb1c8@otaking> X-Sender: otaking@otaking X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:05:17 -0700 To: Stephanie Jackson , otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) From: "Michael D. Garcia" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:01 PM 8/11/98 -0700, Stephanie Jackson wrote: >Forwarded message: >>From owner-feministsf@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Aug 11 21:00:51 1998 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 170 >Message-ID: <3ce30f96.35d10fa1@aol.com> >Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:44:32 EDT >Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > >Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > >From: "Demetria M. Shew" >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > >OK, here is 2cents from the old geezer. >In 1967 (this was just at the time color television was becoming >affordable...but just before the time that the colors stayed put rather than >blending and ghosting about some), Star Trek did weird stuff like have a black >woman as a competent character. >When the show canceled, an underground of trekkies started writing stories for >themselves, and the first stories broke a lot of rules. Some of the earlier >ST has some of the best female characters we had ever read about. It is >pretty tame compared to today, but, hey, it was groundshaking at the time. >And a lot of the good stuff was written by women. I don't really think ST was >feminist, but I do know that it offered options and role models at a time when You have got to be kidding me... while not shown (because NBC found it was too /unbeleivable/) the original first officer was a /woman/ (played by Majel Barret). I beleive that Trek portrayed woman in an equal light better than some of the SciFi of its era (Lost in Space, which brought along a /homemaker/ wife...). Even today, we've seen women starship captains (ST4, TNG, Voyager), doctors (TOS, TNG), first officers (TNG)... in fact, several TNG and TOS episodes have explored the equality between the genders to the point of beating a dead horse. Saying Trek /isn't/ feminist is just plain wrong. >some of us were just waking up to the need for options and rm's. >A couple of years ago, though, a friend of mine and I stopped buying the books >because it felt like they were being book-milled rather than written, and that I'd agree with that, except as with /all/ SF, you gotta pick the good ones from the lot. I listed a few authors who I just buy on sight in a previous reply, and have yet to be dissatisifed with the purchase. >the publishers were taking advantage of the 'collectable" aspect of the works. Well, I wouldn't call ST novels 'collectable'... they aren't plates or models or anything. The novels are more an extension of the series than just collector items, really. MDg +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | | way of sometimes coming true." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:03:00 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne Vespry Subject: Sneetches and Feminist stories w/o women characters In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Re: Discrimination without races. For some reason Donna Bursey's comment > made me think of those "With stars upon thars..." Yeah, Dr Seuss did make that point quite well. Hmmmm... if you figure that most of his characters were non-human (mythical or alien, perhaps) he could be said to have been a science fiction writer. And if he was writing SF, then I'd suggest that he also wrote science fiction that was feminist without explicitly female characters. The stars on the Sneetch bellies could have been meant as a race marker, or a gender marker, or some other marker entirely -- the point being made was that prejudice is not a good thing. Anne Anne Vespry ******* http://www.vex.net/~maverick After Stonewall Bookshop ***** never forget avespry(at) *** only dead fish ollisdotuottawadotca * swim WITH the stream ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:12:11 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek: Garcia via Jackson Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I must admit I'm surprised Peter David didn't make any money to speak of from ST novels...the adaptations of the episodes certainly made James Blish somewhat more solvent, and most of the writers of both ST and their own sf I've read referring to their ST work have tended to suggest that it was subsistence money they were after. Not necessarily that they didn't like ST...it just wasn't Theirs, and not what they considered their best work. (I think BABYLON 5 does manage to maintain a higher standard than any of the ST shows, but they have managed excellent or at least interesting episodes, all four series) (five if you count the cartoon, scripts for which Alan Dean Foster prosed, also presumably to make some bread to do whatever he wanted to do). Roddenberry did have Nichele Nichols in the cast (but gave her comparitively little to do--"The token black and the token female and they make her a telephone operator!" one unsympathetic observer noted), and while the show was taken away from him to some extent in the last season, the profoundly antifeminist last episode of the series (wherein Kirk and an old friend get their personalities switched into each others' bodies) is interesting in this context (as is Shatner's attempt to "feminize" himself). Joanna Russ (title forgotten, I'm afraid), Ursula K. Le Guin ("Intracom"...I think that's the title) and Alice "James Tiptree, Jr." Sheldon ("Beam Me Home" or "Beam Us Home", title story of her collection) have all written interesting feminist "response" short stories to ST. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:41:03 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek: Garcia via Jackson (fwd) Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From otaking@otaking.org Tue Aug 11 21:39:05 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980811213626.006ff72c@otaking> X-Sender: otaking@otaking X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:36:27 -0700 To: Stephanie Jackson , otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) From: "Michael D. Garcia" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek: Garcia via Jackson (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:25 PM 8/11/98 -0700, Stephanie Jackson wrote: >I must admit I'm surprised Peter David didn't make any money to speak of from >ST novels...the adaptations of the episodes certainly made James Blish >somewhat more solvent, and most of the writers of both ST and their own sf >I've read referring to their ST work have tended to suggest that it was >subsistence money they were after. Not necessarily that they didn't like >ST...it just wasn't Theirs, and not what they considered their best work. (I >think BABYLON 5 does manage to maintain a higher standard than any of the ST >shows, but they have managed excellent or at least interesting episodes, all >four series) (five if you count the cartoon, scripts for which Alan Dean You can't compare B5 to Trek. Can't. Babylon 5 is a five-year story arc, where 75% of the episodes were written by the same person. Trek is episodic, where the timeline's continuity isn't bridged directly from the previous episode (it's like comparing a soap to a sitcom, almost). Higher standards? Probably.. unlike Trek, J. Michael Stracynzki (Babylon 5's creator and head writer) managed to hang onto the creative direction whereas Gene Roddenberry was elevated to a 'creative consultant' title which also had executive producer rights (as Paramount handed the Trek shows over to Rick Berman and Michael Piller). >Foster prosed, also presumably to make some bread to do whatever he wanted to >do). Roddenberry did have Nichele Nichols in the cast (but gave her >comparitively little to do--"The token black and the token female and they >make her a telephone operator!" one unsympathetic observer noted), and while Alan Dean Foster also wrote /tons/ of movie novelizations (Gremlins, Aliens, et al). And *sigh* Nichelle Nichols... has /often/ repeated her tale of why she wanted to leave the show (because of the 'glorified operator' role written for her). In fact, one of the episodes in the third season has Uhura in the center seat (not shown, alluded to over intercom), which boosted the Uhura role in Nichelle's eyes. >the show was taken away from him to some extent in the last season, the >profoundly antifeminist last episode of the series (wherein Kirk and an old >friend get their personalities switched into each others' bodies) is >interesting in this context (as is Shatner's attempt to "feminize" himself). 'Turnabout Intruder', and by far, one of the /worst/ rated episodes IMHO. Think back, though... as Trek was on its last legs and striving to do anything to stay on the air. For a 1960s show, they sure did their share of current events... as Dorothy Fontana once said 'We got stories past the censors that other shows couldn't do, because we disguised it as science-fiction. All we had to do was portray it on another planet with another civilization!' :) All in all, I continue to defend Trek as an excellent means of portraying humanity in a finer light than other series have (including Babylon 5). Although Trek tends to give the stories an 'everything's okay' whitewash, I've always preferred the happy ending to the sad one. Of course... I, myself, have written a rather... dark short story set in the Trek universe which abandons everything Roddenberry tried to promote ;) MDg +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | | way of sometimes coming true." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:05:31 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I will never get over the episode where all the officers but Uhura and Chekov were planetside, so instead of putting Uhura in charge they dug someone up from engineering who'd never been seen on the bridge before. That wasn't Gene Roddenberry's fault, but it showed the attitudes of the people who'd taken over the show. Even in the Sixties, a woman was occasionally allowed to fill in for a man who was temporarily absent, so the show was even more sexist than real life Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:23:25 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... In-Reply-To: <3ce30f96.35d10fa1@aol.com> from "Demetria M. Shew" at Aug 11, 98 11:44:32 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Madrone sez: > OK, here is 2cents from the old geezer. > In 1967 (this was just at the time color television was becoming > affordable...but just before the time that the colors stayed put rather than > blending and ghosting about some), Star Trek did weird stuff like have a black > woman as a competent character. > [snip] I heard, I don't recall if it was tv, an article or what, that Nichelle Nichols (sp?) once expressed disatisfaction with her role. (She said something like sometimes all she had to do for episode after episode was "Hailing frequencies open, Captain.") She was thinking about quitting the show. Then she met Martin Luther KIng who praised her role and said that she was a role model and he told her not to quit. I think its easy to forget how ground breaking some of these shows were. Heck I recall when the sitcom "Julia" was on that it was a big deal. A show starring a black woman who had a job as a nurse! Now, of course, we might easily rip it to shreds. Why was she a nurse and not a doctor? Why is she a single mother, without a competent black life partner? etc. etc. Reading books on ST it seems clear that Gene Roddenberry, and others connected with the show, were trying to push the envelope of what people saw and thought. Often they were forced to compromise, as someone else mentioned, but they *tried.* Peace, Caroline ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:21:39 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Star Trek (fwd) Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From otaking@otaking.org Tue Aug 11 23:19:11 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980811231632.007028a0@otaking> X-Sender: otaking@otaking X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:16:33 -0700 To: Stephanie Jackson , otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) From: "Michael D. Garcia" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Star Trek (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:42 PM 8/11/98 -0700, Stephanie Jackson wrote: >I will never get over the episode where all the officers but Uhura and >Chekov were planetside, so instead of putting Uhura in charge they dug >someone up from engineering who'd never been seen on the bridge before. >That wasn't Gene Roddenberry's fault, but it showed the attitudes of the >people who'd taken over the show. Even in the Sixties, a woman was >occasionally allowed to fill in for a man who was temporarily absent, so >the show was even more sexist than real life Same NBC mentality that thought society couldn't deal with a woman first officer ("The Cage" aka "The Menagerie"). Remember, Roddenberry's vision was /quite feministic/. It was the network that wouldn't allow him to portray his vision as such... don't blame the show's staff, blame NBC ;) MDg +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | | way of sometimes coming true." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:58:38 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: Sneetches and Feminist stories w/o women char I consider "The Sneetches" by Seuss my very first exposure to fantasy/sf with (at the very least) an important social equality aspect (I was 5 and it was 1964). The only gender-specific character was the marketing genius, selling and removing belly "stars" for a price, eventually draining the economics of the society, leaving them with nothing except each other...stars or no. It was quite comforting to know that everyone excepted each other, but the impression left was that the guy that took all their money and some dignity was, indeed, a white guy (at the time I did not recognize androgeny particularly..but was VERY keen on race). IMHO this story could be interpreted as feminist, but I think it is more universal than that. Penny On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > > Re: Discrimination without races. For some reason Donna Bursey's comment > > made me think of those "With stars upon thars..." Anne Vespry wrote: > Yeah, Dr Seuss did make that point quite well. Hmmmm... if you figure that > most of his characters were non-human (mythical or alien, perhaps) he > could be said to have been a science fiction writer. And if he was writing > SF, then I'd suggest that he also wrote science fiction that was feminist > without explicitly female characters. The stars on the Sneetch bellies > could have been meant as a race marker, or a gender marker, or some other > marker entirely -- the point being made was that prejudice is not a good > thing. > > Anne > > Anne Vespry ******* http://www.vex.net/~maverick > After Stonewall Bookshop ***** never forget > avespry(at) *** only dead fish > ollisdotuottawadotca * swim WITH the stream > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:13:41 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: SF texts available online Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I've noticed that a number of authors have been placing their short fiction online, especially those nominated for awards; authors from the 1998 Hugo nominations list are: Karen Joy Fowler http://www.sfwa.org/members/Fowler/index.htp#Standing James Patrick Kelly: http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~jimkelly/ Andy Duncan http://www.angelfire.com/al/andyduncan/ Links to online stories are provided under each year's list of nominees through the Hugo Awards site: http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/awards/hugos/index.html I haven't yet come across another site that provides links to online texts for award nominees. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:39:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: _I Who Have Never Known Men_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mike-- Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to a discussion I asked for--I'm glad someone else has read this! At 11:04 AM 8/9/98 -0500, Michael Marc Levy wrote: >SPOILERS ************************************************** > I found this book to be very much like what I've read of other French feminist "SF," such as that of Monique Wittig, or Christiane Rochefort--writers who do not self-identify -as- SF writers. They tend to write outside of the genre, in a kind of blend between fantasy and surrealism, especially in the fact that they don't bother to posit a coherent textual world, i.e., one where cause and effect are consistent in the political, economical, historical, etc. background. This may be why you felt bereft of "science fictional" answers... What this "style" does, however, is allow for a thought experiment that bleeds into emotional areas. The problem with this style of writing is that it frequently leaves the reader unable to really test hir own reactions against those of the characters, since sie doesn't know all the background. I would read this novelette as an experiment with raising a girl child without male "prejudice." What I did find fascinating was the complete -lack- of us/them mentality along a gender line. Even though later on she finds that some of the camps held male prisoners (with male guards, I assume--though the lack of any differentiation in objects/clothing left behind might not really be an indicator of the guards' sex), one would expect a child growing up in this situation to automatically have some kind of fascination about the Others on the free side--it might not have to be the hatred the other women feel, since they have known freedom before, and the child, not. I also found the lack of "typical" feminine "emotionalism" an interesting characteristic in this child--even though later on she realizes, by contrast, that she did indeed experience emotions. The emphasis Harpman puts on logic and intelligence, and on "mathematical" abilities (stereotypically male traits) is an interesting bias, seemingly stereotypical in its own right (kneejerk counter-reaction to patriarchalism?). Oh--and her ability to become the "colony's" carpenter, too. >One thing that fascinated me was the way the protagonist, the child, was >able to essentially bootstrap herself into a mental state where she could >feel some sense of triumph, first by trying to disconcert the guard by >staring at him, and then defeating what appeared to be an intentional >plot to keep them ignorant of how time was passing, by becoming an >automatic counter and thereby discovering that the guards deliberately >varied the time between meals and lights out. > I thought it interesting that she would postulate that she -could- affect the young guard that way; presumably she did so because she was influenced by her co-prisoners. Indeed, there is nothing in -her- limited experience to even tell her that these guards are human, or "like her" in any way. She certainly does not seem over-distressed by the fact that -they- look at her all the time (see lack of concern over the toilet business)--why would she assume the reverse? >My wife, Sandra Lindow, who read the book before I did, and whose review >of I Who Have Never Known Men will be appearing in the Science Fiction >Research Association Review, believes that the child was autistic, >whether from birth or as a result of traumas that occurred before she was >imprisoned with the other women. Evidence--the automatic counting ability >and her almost complete aversion to touch. She was also taken with the >book's connections with Kafka's The Penal Colony. > Interesting postulation about autism, though I'm not sure--given the lack of coherent cause and effect relationships elsewhere in this book--that such an approach would really help clarify things for me. How did Sandra find the autism explained the child's reactions more? Did she think the autism had a specific purpose within the frame of the book? >Any book like this, where we never get an explanation for events, would >seem to lend itself to all sorts of symbolic and psychological >interpretations. Why do all of the guards carry copies of a book on >gardening? Why is the library full of books on aeronautics? What killed >the bus-load of guards? > Yeah--good questions, but part of what I find frustrating about this style of writing--you can postulate a whole bunch, but you can't determine anything with certainty, because of the lack of cause and effect, again. Gardening: Voltaire? All is for the best in the best of all worlds? Aeronautics: to further the impression that this indeed was some kind of extra-terrestrial colony? Perhaps the guards thought that humans were plants... As for the killing of the guards, the set-up (underground bunkers, wailing sirens) seemed to point towards some kind of nuclear disaster... *shrug* but again, considering lack of evidence, it's difficult, and perhaps irrelevant, to speculate about such motives. I dunno--am I totally off-base here? I still found it an interesting book... Heather =) __________________________________________ "Output of your job hmaclean: > Reality is only a question of language. Unknown command - "REALITY". Try HELP." -------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:49:39 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: Dont go yet.....on AI MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In my opinion Alien Influences is a flawed book but worthwhile for all that. To a large extent I agree with what Marina says about it. Whether it is feminist or not seems not to be the point to me. Whilst I agree that we are nowhere near a feminist utopia at least we women in the western world have some legal rights in law. We are no longer owned and we *can* own property/work for a living/make our own choices etc. I accept that it is an uphill struggle even for us priviledged few but it *is* a possibility. Kids, on the other hand, do not have even this range of options. Not even rich white kids. (Perhaps especially not them.) They are dependant on adults in the same way that our foremothers were dependant (by law) on men. I think any book that highlights the plight of kids when things go wrong is useful. I would agree that lots of kids are probably happy, at least for the first ten years of their lives, in standard families. Possibly many of our foremothers were happy to be supported by their fathers then husbands then even their sons. At present I am supported by my husband. One of the things that makes this acceptable for me is the fact that it is my choice. The knowledge that I can up and off is essential to my peace of mind. Kids can't up and off. If they run away from home they are caught and brought back or put into 'homes'. The most frightening thing about this oppression is the human tendancy to do to others what was done to us. I try very hard to bring up my kids in a liberal way but when I'm tired or at the end of my tether the default setting for child rearing is still my parent's methods. Generation after generation of oppressed children becoming adults who oppress their own children and the men, of course, oppress women as well. I really think a feminist world will come about when we stop oppressing our children. AI doesn't inspire me in the way, eg 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas' does. Reading it does not make me better able to cope on the bad days. It could have been much more, but in raising an often hidden issue it contributes something to the struggle for freedom. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:56:00 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... In-Reply-To: <199808120523.BAA10212@viking.cris.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There was a recent interview with Nichelle Nichols in TV Guide - they asked her what she was proudest of about the role of Uhura, and she related a story about Whoopi Goldberg seeing Uhura on TV when she was little and being very excited by the fact that there was a black woman on TV who wasn't a maid. She seemed to be aware that while the role was far from perfect, it was inspiring for all that. -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Caroline Couture [mailto:Ccouture@CONCENTRIC.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 10:23 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... > > > Madrone sez: > > OK, here is 2cents from the old geezer. > > In 1967 (this was just at the time color television was becoming > > affordable...but just before the time that the colors > stayed put rather than > > blending and ghosting about some), Star Trek did weird > stuff like have a black > > woman as a competent character. > > [snip] > > I heard, I don't recall if it was tv, an article or what, > that Nichelle > Nichols (sp?) once expressed disatisfaction with her role. (She said > something like sometimes all she had to do for episode after > episode was > "Hailing frequencies open, Captain.") She was thinking about > quitting the > show. Then she met Martin Luther KIng who praised her role > and said that > she was a role model and he told her not to quit. > > I think its easy to forget how ground breaking some of these > shows were. > Heck I recall when the sitcom "Julia" was on that it was a big deal. A > show starring a black woman who had a job as a nurse! Now, of > course, we > might easily rip it to shreds. Why was she a nurse and not a > doctor? Why > is she a single mother, without a competent black life > partner? etc. etc. > > Reading books on ST it seems clear that Gene Roddenberry, and others > connected with the show, were trying to push the envelope of > what people > saw and thought. Often they were forced to compromise, as someone else > mentioned, but they *tried.* > > Peace, > Caroline > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:20:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Aug 98 09:56:00 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I only started watching Star Trek because of reading the books, and I continued to read the books long after I stopped watching the show. It seemed to me that many of the authors took the stated premises of equality and made them real. There wasn't too much that could be done with the original cast, but if I recall correctly Diane Duane gave Uhura an advanced degree ("So, Captain, if we just invert the wavicles we can increase bandwidth by -- " "Please, stop, I couldn't even understand your undergraduate thesis! Go tell Spock, maybe he'll understand it!"), another author took officers out of commission until Uhura did command the ship, and many of them sprinkled female captains, politicians, secret agents, engineers and scientists liberally throughout their books. I was actually disappointed when I started watching the show and there were almost no women. On the other hand, I remember hearing that there was a great deal of excitement over The First Interracial Kiss On TV, so I have to assume that The First Black Woman On Deck was exciting too. I remember hearing that Nichelle Nichols went on to recruit women and minorities for NASA. Perhaps we should be comparing this show to other shows of the same time period, instead of what we want now. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:47:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: Sneetches and Feminist stories w/o women char MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- I just read the Seuss biography in prep for a Seuss panel at Diversicon 6. In his day, Seuss was gently criticized by a feminist reviewer (a famous name that I've unfortunately forgotten, and I no longer have the bio) for writing with almost exclusively male protagonists. Seuss took it in stride and argued, in effect, that most of his characters are animals or imaginary beasts, therefore outside the scope of this kind of criticism. Still, his heroes are mostly referred to as "he" or "him," aren't they? ("Hop on Mom" just doesn't have the same ring to it.) Incidentally, Seuss almost stopped publication of The Sneetches because a friend told him it was anti-Semitic (?). But then another friend told him that was unfounded, and he proceeded. Maybe Seuss, a German-American , was worried that he might have a political blind spot there. Anyway, he ventured into explicit political propaganda on only a couple of occasions, in "The Lorax" and "The Butter Battle Book," never into explicit feminism, but in general he was always quite liberal for his times. Notable incident: an anti-abortion-rights group tried to co-opt the slogan "A person's a person, no matter how small" beginning in 1986, but Seuss stopped them, threatening legal action. -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:47:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- My $.02 on this matter: Trek, as a whole, is not feminist. But except for a few exceptional episodes, it's not incompatible with feminism. As for classic vs. new Trek, I had a long argument with Eric Heideman about this about a year ago. The original Trek *was* groundbreaking for its politics (though when I watched its original airing as a 10-year-old kid, I hardly noticed the difference, even when Uhura and Kirk smooched - I must have been fairly enlightened for a farmboy.) But as I pointed out to Eric, Next Gen & its spinoffs are not at all in the vanguard; they're just mainstream liberal. If you're looking for challenging social comment, you have to look elsewhere on TV. It's really sort of disappointing. It will be interesting when the Sci-Fi channel re-airs the originals with restored footage starting Sept 1, to see if some of that groundbreaking off-hand stuff was cut out for reruns. I would not be at all surprised. Off topic a bit, but I can't resist: S. Jackson, I think, says: > Well, I wouldn't call ST novels 'collectable'... they aren't plates or models > or anything. The novels are more an extension of the series than just > collector items, really. I write about collectibles for a living. My definition of collectible: if somebody's collecting it, it's collectible. Several of the books are listed in the price guide "Star Trek Collectibles" from Schiffer Books, 1997, so at least one person (the price guide author) is collecting them . Whether they're a good investment or not is quite another question. -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:18:48 -0400 Reply-To: Bertina Miller Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Comments: To: DAVID CHRISTENSON In-Reply-To: <199808121847.OAA15958@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > > My $.02 on this matter: Trek, as a whole, is not feminist. But except > for a few exceptional episodes, it's not incompatible with feminism. > > As for classic vs. new Trek, I had a long argument with Eric Heideman > about this about a year ago. The original Trek *was* groundbreaking for > its politics (though when I watched its original airing as a 10-year-old > kid, I hardly noticed the difference, even when Uhura and Kirk smooched > - I must have been fairly enlightened for a farmboy.) But as I pointed > out to Eric, Next Gen & its spinoffs are not at all in the vanguard; > they're just mainstream liberal. If you're looking for challenging > social comment, you have to look elsewhere on TV. It's really sort of > disappointing. > [snip] I would have to disagree with you on the notion that the new Treks are "just mainstream liberal." I think the very fact that ST Voyager has a female captain and the issues tend to be about more female-oriented topics, that Voyager is far more feminist than any of the other Treks combined. ST DS9 also has a female character(Jadzia Dax) that has been both male and female in her long extended life (over 400 years). Such characters go beyond "mainstream liberal." Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that to me. One of the healthiest aspects of Voyager is that there are continual conflicts between the female captain and the other female members of the crew. It is of course minimalist in its portrayals mainly for time restrictive reasons, but to me there are more accomplishments with relationship dynamics than the original Star Trek. IMHO, Bertina Miller bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:57:38 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Comments: To: Bertina Miller In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: [snip] > Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the > very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that > they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will > admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that > to me. One of the healthiest aspects of Voyager is that there are > continual conflicts between the female captain and the other female > members of the crew. It is of course minimalist in its portrayals mainly > for time restrictive reasons, but to me there are more accomplishments > with relationship dynamics than the original Star Trek. I understand your feelings. However, I disagree that Voyager is a flop (In my mind it is/was) because it has a female captain. If it is because of the captain I think it is because of the acting and characterization of the captain rather than the fact that she is a woman. Actually, I think it really ends up being due to a combination of bad writing and acting, a lack of anything new to say, and competition from better shows. I (and a number of my friends) were very psyched about Voyager. We were psyched about a female captain. However, much as I wanted to like it and looked for things to like (Bellana, Kim (don't ask me why but we all liked him), and the Doctor come to mind). The really awful rehashed plots, by now formulaic and obviously meaningless technobabble, Gilligan's Island feeling, and bad acting/characterizations of the captain, Tuvok (somehow he simply always looks annoyed and cross), and others took it out of me. Taking into consideration the existence of Babylon 5 and DS9 (finally overcoming its bad start-up time) who needed Voyager? It might be that Voyager has improved since then. However, it is easier to gain viewers than to re-gain lost viewers. (why I rarely watch DS9 or Voyager) -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:57:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From otaking@otaking.org Wed Aug 12 15:55:45 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980812155306.00701f70@otaking> X-Sender: otaking@otaking X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:53:07 -0700 To: Stephanie Jackson , otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) From: "Michael D. Garcia" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:37 PM 8/12/98 -0700, Stephanie Jackson wrote: >I would have to disagree with you on the notion that the new Treks are >"just mainstream liberal." I think the very fact that ST Voyager has a >female captain and the issues tend to be about more female-oriented >topics, that Voyager is far more feminist than any of the other Treks >combined. Okay... uh, I define feminism as such: Doctrine which advocates or demands for women the same rights as men. Trek portrays the above in every episode. Maybe there's a /different/ definition of feminism I'm missing here, but I've been moving along the dictionary definition for quite some time. I consider myself a feminist (someone who supports equality for women). >ST DS9 also has a female character(Jadzia Dax) that has been both male and >female in her long extended life (over 400 years). Such characters go >beyond "mainstream liberal." You'll have to define mainstream liberal for me ;) Somehow I think that's an oxymoron ;) >Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the >very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that >they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will >admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that >to me. One of the healthiest aspects of Voyager is that there are >continual conflicts between the female captain and the other female >members of the crew. It is of course minimalist in its portrayals mainly >for time restrictive reasons, but to me there are more accomplishments >with relationship dynamics than the original Star Trek. Well... no. :) Star Trek: Voyager's popularity isn't as heightened as TNGs for reason beyond the fact that there's a woman in charge (although it /is/ a valid claim). 1) The Next Generation premeired after a 20+ year hiatus of Trek from TV. 2) The Next Generation has an old familiar: the Enterprise. 3) Voyager is the /third/ sequel-series... some fans are just sick of Trek already. I'll bet you dimes to donuts that if Voyager premeired in 1987 in place of TNG, it would have been as popular. Captain Janeway in command of the Enterprise would have been better received than in Voyager, hands down. Hmm, Captain Janeway and Commander Picard.... interesting combination... ;) MDg +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | | way of sometimes coming true." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:09:42 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Comments: To: Joel VanLaven In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: > > [snip] > > Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the > > very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that > > they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will > > admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that > > to me. One of the healthiest aspects of Voyager is that there are > > continual conflicts between the female captain and the other female > > members of the crew. It is of course minimalist in its portrayals mainly > > for time restrictive reasons, but to me there are more accomplishments > > with relationship dynamics than the original Star Trek. > > I understand your feelings. However, I disagree that Voyager is a flop > (In my mind it is/was) because it has a female captain. If it is because > of the captain I think it is because of the acting and characterization of > the captain rather than the fact that she is a woman. Actually, I think > it really ends up being due to a combination of bad writing and acting, a > lack of anything new to say, and competition from better shows. > > I (and a number of my friends) were very psyched about Voyager. We were > psyched about a female captain. However, much as I wanted to like it and > looked for things to like (Bellana, Kim (don't ask me why but we all > liked him), and the Doctor come to mind). The really awful rehashed > plots, by now formulaic and obviously meaningless technobabble, > Gilligan's Island feeling, and bad acting/characterizations of the > captain, Tuvok (somehow he simply always looks annoyed and cross), and > others took it out of me. Taking into consideration the existence of > Babylon 5 and DS9 (finally overcoming its bad start-up time) who needed > Voyager? > > It might be that Voyager has improved since then. However, it is easier > to gain viewers than to re-gain lost viewers. > > (why I rarely watch DS9 or Voyager) > > -- Joel VanLaven > Well, I think your bringing Babylon 5 into it is interesting. I tried to get into B5 and found the show more like the original ST and in that sense, more oriented toward men-it seemed much more Hard SF than Star Trek was or, especially, is. I also find men prefer B5 over Voyager and DS9. Next Generation also was rather quirky and different when it first came out and it was about a year or two before it gained an audience. One of the biggest reasons I am so passionate about the 2 new series of ST is that my mother and I get to watch it together usually. It is interesting because my mother never liked science fiction until she became interested in the later ST series' and never gained interest in the original. It is something that a 63 and a 31 year old woman can sit down and watch together. Certain people talk about "liberal bias" in the media and television, but to me, personally, it goes beyond that. I think my mother became interested in the later series' because they were more relationship oriented. In fact I remember when ST DS9 was first pitched to the Next Generation fans, the producer mentioned that it would be more appealing to women because the writers would focus more on relationships. Bertina ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:16:34 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199808122257.PAA16082@otaking.otaking.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Actually I agree. Star Trek was wonderful and innovative when it first aired and later when the other series' took over. I wasnt trying to debate which was a better show or which was more feminist. I think trying to define the terms of what is this and what is that is too relative and I wont get into that. Bertina On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Stephanie Jackson wrote: > > >Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the > >very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that > >they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will > >admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that > >to me. One of the healthiest aspects of Voyager is that there are > >continual conflicts between the female captain and the other female > >members of the crew. It is of course minimalist in its portrayals mainly > >for time restrictive reasons, but to me there are more accomplishments > >with relationship dynamics than the original Star Trek. > > Well... no. :) Star Trek: Voyager's popularity isn't as heightened as TNGs > for reason beyond the fact that there's a woman in charge (although it /is/ > a valid claim). > > 1) The Next Generation premeired after a 20+ year hiatus of Trek from TV. > 2) The Next Generation has an old familiar: the Enterprise. > 3) Voyager is the /third/ sequel-series... some fans are just sick of Trek > already. > > I'll bet you dimes to donuts that if Voyager premeired in 1987 in place of > TNG, it would have been as popular. Captain Janeway in command of the > Enterprise would have been better received than in Voyager, hands down. > Hmm, Captain Janeway and Commander Picard.... interesting combination... ;) > > MDg > > > +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ > | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | > | way of sometimes coming true." | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | > +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:57:42 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: [snipped my original post] [snip] > I also find men prefer B5 over Voyager and DS9. Next Generation also > was rather quirky and different when it first came out and it was about a > year or two before it gained an audience. Yes, my point exactly. I consider it harder to re-gain a lost audience than to gain a new one. I think DS9 and Voyager lost their audience early on and have been trying to get them back. TNG did not go through that. It goes along with "once bitten twice shy" > One of the biggest reasons I am so passionate about the 2 new series of ST > is that my mother and I get to watch it together usually. It is > interesting because my mother never liked science fiction until she became > interested in the later ST series' and never gained interest in the > original. It is something that a 63 and a 31 year old woman can sit down > and watch together. Certain people talk about "liberal bias" in the media > and television, but to me, personally, it goes beyond that. I think my > mother became interested in the later series' because they were more > relationship oriented. In fact I remember when ST DS9 was first pitched to > the Next Generation fans, the producer mentioned that it would be more > appealing to women because the writers would focus more on relationships. First of all I'd like to remove the original series from this particular part of the discussion. I would like to discuss relationships vs. hard science. First some definitions: Hard science for this discussion will be constrained, pre-set (or at least apparently pre-set), important science that actually has force on the universe and the story). I include social science and such here, not just physics. Soft science for this discussion will be unbounded, made-up-on-a-whim, dismissable science that is simply window-dressing. In my opinion B5 has alot of hard science and not much soft science. This is as opposed to Voyager say which seemed to me to flip those two having alot of soft science and not much hard science. I think each can get in the way of someone appreciating the story, the real underlying stuff going on (if it is there at all). I (and probably many of my compatriots) cannot handle soft science very well. Some people (perhaps your mom) cannot handle hard science that well. I get / have gotten alot out of B5 in relationship area. I do not watch it simply because it has science in it. I did not see all that much meaningful in the relationships in Voyager or DS9 for that matter (esp when it was newer). They may have gotten better. In fact, they may have dropped the soft science in favor of the relationships. If so I might enjoy them. Some of my favorite TV episodes are from TNG that deal with relationships in a science-fiction way (by creating a new circumstance and exploring it) For instance, the TNG episode where Picard gets his flute. Or some of the episodes about Data. That have pratically nothing to do with science. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:13:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Shadow Man Availability In-Reply-To: <000501bdc561$184f6d40$31272299@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" OK - glad to see all this enthusiasm for Shadow Man, or at least a Scott discussion in general. With the stash that Joyce uncovered, below, (plus libraries and other resources suggested earlier) is there anyone who feels we shouldn't go ahead with the Shadow Man discussion in October? You can just email me privately if you'd like, to avoid cluttering up the list. Only email me if you won't be able to read Shadow Man! If I don't hear from anyone in a week or so, then we'll proceed with the discussion as planned. If there are only a few folks who won't be able to read it, perhaps we can get volunteers to share their copies. I'll let you all know. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com At 12:49 PM 08/11/98 -0700, you wrote: >Well, it's probably too late for this, but I contacted Bookexpress and they >have 31 copies of Shadow Man available for $7.99 plus shipping in paperback >and possibly still 2 hard back copies for $5.99. Most of the sellers in >Bibliofind also have it for about $20.00 plus shipping, except for the >Common Reader which seems to be out. I'd love to discuss an Octavia Butler >book, so I don't at all mind the substitution, but if we start this early >maybe enough of us could get Shadow Man that we can discuss it some time in >the future. > >Joyce > >http://www.bookexpress.com/ > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:34:28 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catweasel Subject: Re: Sneetches MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To me the attraction of Seuss was always due in large part to his anti "ist" stance. His work is never sexist or feminist, nor tainted by any other bias. His characters just "are." The only philosophy which runs consistently through his books is equality. This, of course, is what makes his works essential reading for children and adults alike. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Catweasel http://www.catweasel.org The truth is out there, but so is the Goodyear blimp. Don't get them confused. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:02:32 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: ST: Miller, et al, and an Alice Sheldon correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Last night, I mangled Alice "James Tiptree, Jr." Sheldon's titles--I'm still not sure that the relevant ST-response story is "Beam Us Home" (think that's right, though), but the collection it's in is TEN THOUSAND LIGHT YEARS FROM HOME (a Stones fan, perhaps, atypically of her generation if so). Still can't remember Joanna Russ's--does anyone else? And, in what will be probably one of my latter posts on ST, I will note that if VOYAGER is unpopular with ST fandom, it is still seen by more people on average than saw each of the previous sequel-series, except the cartoon, on first showing--UPN as a new network has low ratings, but ST:V is their best- rated series, and if Nielsen is to be believed, the current show is more widely watched than the two syndicated series have been before multiple repeats, or than new DS9s or XENAs are. I think both the criticisms (underdeveloped characters, notably excepting the Doctor [at first a farily acute portrait of how an artificial intelligence with sharply-defined parameters might behave], often weak scripts) and the praise (more attention to interactions between nonidentical women, and a less whitebread cast, than the last two shows, though DS9 clearly was also an improvement over TNG in that regard) are deserved. I would note that TNG and DS9 both improved remarkably after the initial few seasons; TNG started as a particulary dire recapitulation of the first series in too many ways. BABYLON 5, only a certain measure more the work of one writer than such contemporary series as the often excellent BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER or X-FILES and by extension the STs (every show has story editors and "bibles", after all), took a little time to find its feet as well...I've tended to think of that show as the finest space opera we've seen on tv. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:02:30 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek...:Stickgold-Sarah Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-12 13:21:35 EDT, you write: << Perhaps we should be comparing this show to other shows of the same time period, instead of what we want now. >> Actually, STAR TREK's "boldness" in such matters has been overstated...there was a fair amount of racial diversity in tv in the 1960s, and I think that most of the problems ST faced were in part because it was "merely" a kiddy sci-fi show (another kind of slap in the face, of course)--"serious" shows such as EAST SIDE, WEST SIDE (starring Cicely Tyson and Geoge C. Scott as social workers--little Whoopi probably wouldn't be allowed to stay up for a show often set in rat-infested ghettos) or THE DEFENDERS were allowed to tackle "race" and other "sensitive" issues, and the parity of Scott and Kelly on I SPY (and the clarity with which the point was made that Bill Cosby's character was the brainier of the pair, Robert Culp's the comparitive brawn) made that issue more central to that show. Uhura and Kirk didn't really kiss, in part to avoid upsetting the people who screamed when Harry Belafonte or perhaps it was Johnny Mathis semi-hugged Julie Andrews (I believe it was) on a variety show not long before as they sang a duet. In fact, the "adult Westerns" (with frequent considerations of Native Americans' and late- immigrants' plights, some better than others of course, and ludicrous portrayals of people mixed with good ones), the PLAYHOUSE 90-style anthology series, such crime fiction shows as NAKED CITY and NYPD, the spy shows SECRET AGENT and I SPY, and even such earlier SF series as THE OUTER LIMITS (and, of couse, often heavy-handedly, THE TWILIGHT ZONE) dealt sometimes very well with themes we choose to forget were often broached. I suspect that more Asian- American actors were visisble in 1960s tv, in stereotypical as well as non and pseudonon roles of course, than ever were in the 1970s, and if it hadn't been for MASH and HAWAII FIVE-O, almost none would've been visible in the more "enlightened" decade, nor do I think we've seen as many in the two decades since. In short, ST didn't spring out of nowhere. But it has survived. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:39:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I just want to clarify I was referring to hard science fiction not hard science fact, which if you are like me, I do enjoy a good science book/magazine/television show, but sometimes do not want to deal with hard science fiction when I want to be entertained. But yes, either can get in the way of the plot or story line. Or if you are like my mom, it will totally go over her head, she ignores it, and goes on to the more important aspects of the relations between the characters. Finding what is false or untrue about the science in science fiction is fruitless in my opinion. Such thinking distracts from the story and you lose the point of the show or book. But each to his/her own-. Bertina On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: > > [snipped my original post] > > [snip] > > > I also find men prefer B5 over Voyager and DS9. Next Generation also > > was rather quirky and different when it first came out and it was about a > > year or two before it gained an audience. > > Yes, my point exactly. I consider it harder to re-gain a lost audience > than to gain a new one. I think DS9 and Voyager lost their audience early > on and have been trying to get them back. TNG did not go through that. > It goes along with "once bitten twice shy" > > > One of the biggest reasons I am so passionate about the 2 new series of ST > > is that my mother and I get to watch it together usually. It is > > interesting because my mother never liked science fiction until she became > > interested in the later ST series' and never gained interest in the > > original. It is something that a 63 and a 31 year old woman can sit down > > and watch together. Certain people talk about "liberal bias" in the media > > and television, but to me, personally, it goes beyond that. I think my > > mother became interested in the later series' because they were more > > relationship oriented. In fact I remember when ST DS9 was first pitched to > > the Next Generation fans, the producer mentioned that it would be more > > appealing to women because the writers would focus more on relationships. > > First of all I'd like to remove the original series from this particular > part of the discussion. I would like to discuss relationships vs. hard > science. > > First some definitions: > Hard science for this discussion will be constrained, pre-set (or at > least apparently pre-set), important science that actually has force on > the universe and the story). I include social science and such here, not > just physics. > > Soft science for this discussion will be unbounded, made-up-on-a-whim, > dismissable science that is simply window-dressing. > > In my opinion B5 has alot of hard science and not much soft science. > This is as opposed to Voyager say which seemed to me to flip those two > having alot of soft science and not much hard science. > > I think each can get in the way of someone appreciating the story, the > real underlying stuff going on (if it is there at all). I (and probably > many of my compatriots) cannot handle soft science very well. Some people > (perhaps your mom) cannot handle hard science that well. > > I get / have gotten alot out of B5 in relationship area. I do not watch > it simply because it has science in it. > > I did not see all that much meaningful in the relationships in Voyager or > DS9 for that matter (esp when it was newer). They may have gotten better. > In fact, they may have dropped the soft science in favor of the > relationships. If so I might enjoy them. Some of my favorite TV episodes > are from TNG that deal with relationships in a science-fiction way (by > creating a new circumstance and exploring it) For instance, the TNG > episode where Picard gets his flute. Or some of the episodes about Data. > That have pratically nothing to do with science. > > -- Joel VanLaven > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:31:44 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/98 3:49:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, percy@OTAKING.OTAKING.ORG writes: << Okay... uh, I define feminism as such: Doctrine which advocates or demands for women the same rights as men. >> I keep hearing this from younger women, and it surprises me. Feminism is, and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to Life than simple equality. In fiction, it is a (sometimes playful, sometimes sharply funny) switch in viewpoints: an exploration of how things would be if we lived a different, feminist, point of view. It makes us examine such things as what our personal lives would be if we had a different gender, etc. The one time the original Star Trek tried something like this, the conclusion was basically that women could not be Captains of Star Ships, It was later, in the novels, that this idea was challenged. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:47:58 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/11/98 9:06:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, percy@OTAKING.OTAKING.ORG writes: << ou have got to be kidding me... while not shown (because NBC found it was too /unbeleivable/) the original first officer was a /woman/ (played by Majel Barret). >> Exactly. We were keenly aware of that choice at the time of the first airings of the program and there was open discussion that having a woman captain was just 'way too unbelievable. While the books explored feminist issues later on, the initial programs really did not. It was in the books that Chapel was first educated to Doctor. When the infamouse program aired that concluded women could not be Starship Captains, there was active discussion about this in my peer groups...and most of the girls agreed with the conclusion. This was not helpful. Remember: it was a very long time between the original series and the programs you refer to. In her book, the actress who played Uhura speaks about how she was so frustrated with being limited to "Yes, Captain" that she wanted to quit. I believe the change in the tone of Star Trek came about because so many of the people who were keeping it alive, writing stories, going to conventions were women who were giving themselves the opportunity to imagine themselves having adventures. It was not Rodenberry, who was actually more conventional than we may like to think. Glad to see that the programs have changed, though, and that you note the importance of inclusion of women in good stories!! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:50:33 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek: Garcia via Jackson (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit How do we get a copy of this????? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:12:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: 1999 Science Fiction Research Association Conference In-Reply-To: <01J0JBCQLSPQ000JXF@UWSTOUT.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thought this might interest some members of the list: Mike Levy > >The 1999 Science Fiction Research Association Conference will be held at >the Radisson Hotel in downtown Mobile from Tues.,June 2 to Sun.,June 6. >The theme of the conference is: "Southern Accents in Science Fiction." >Andy Duncan, the Program Dir. wrote the following: > > Many science fiction writers live in the South, are native to the South, > or have spent many formative or productive years in the South. Their > fiction uses Southern settings, Southern characters, Southern themes. Yet > one looks in vain through _The Encyclopedia of Southern Culture_ for the > term "science fiction," one looks in vain through _The Encyclopedia of > Science Fiction_ for the entry on "Southern sf." Why should this be? > > Please send your paper proposals, panel proposals, and proposals to read > to aduncan@english.as.ua.edu. > > I will soon send out a flyer to the membership with more details. Thus > far I can tell you that Michael Bishop has agreed to be our Guest of > Honor. > > Yours, Tom Brennan > The Science Fiction Research Association is the oldest organization in the world dedicated to the serious study of fantastic literature. Our membership consists of academics, fiction writers, librarians, scientists, and other people who love good science fiction. Among our better known members are fiction writers Frederik Pohl, Ursula K. LeGuin, Joan Slonczewski, Joanna Russ, Samuel Delany, Jack Williamson, James Gunn, Jody Lynn Nye, Charles Sheffield, Sheila Finch, and Helen Collins. A number of members of this list are also members of SFRA. For information on our next conference contact the above listed people. For information ont the organization itself, contact me at levymm@uwec.edu. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:36:01 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Content-Type: text Forwarded message: >From otaking@otaking.org Wed Aug 12 23:33:46 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980812233101.0070853c@otaking> X-Sender: otaking@otaking X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:31:02 -0700 To: Stephanie Jackson , otaking@otaking.otaking.org (M.D. Garcia) From: "Michael D. Garcia" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:12 PM 8/12/98 -0700, Madrone wrote: >Exactly. We were keenly aware of that choice at the time of the first airings >of the program and there was open discussion that having a woman captain was >just 'way too unbelievable. While the books explored feminist issues later >on, the initial programs really did not. It was in the books that Chapel was >first educated to Doctor. When the infamouse program aired that concluded Actually... it was the first motion picture that determined that. Note that when McCoy beams aboard the Enterprise and accepts his old position, he notes, 'Well, Jim... I hear Chapel's an M.D., now.' (In fact, we even get to see Doctor Chapel in action later on!) Prior to 1979, only a couple of books existed, none of them illustrating Chapel's continuance of education. >women could not be Starship Captains, there was active discussion about this >in my peer groups...and most of the girls agreed with the conclusion. This >was not helpful. Remember: it was a very long time between the original >series and the programs you refer to. In her book, the actress who played True, but in 1986, we saw the /first/ woman captain. Madge Sinclair, a wonderfully talented actress played the captain of the USS Saratoga in Star Trek IV. (Incidentally, she went on to play Captain Silva La Forge (Geordi's Mother) in TNG.) >Uhura speaks about how she was so frustrated with being limited to "Yes, >Captain" that she wanted to quit. Old story, but I know Nichelle's story very well. And yes, I do agree that her role was limited, but exceptional for 1966. Many episodes illustrated Uhura's skill, a fact of which Spokc complimented her on a couple of occasions ("If anyone can do it, Lieutenant Uhura, you can." "I can think of no one more capable of accomplishing this task than you, Lieutenant Uhura."). Many of the television scripts written (never filmed) included Uhura as an expert linguist, a point which was made in Melinda Snodgrass' 'Tears of the Singers', which is an /excellent/ Uhura novel (MUST READ, another of which is 'The Disinherited'). Novels post-five year mission showed Uhura in a variety of roles; Professor of Linguistics at Starfleet Academy, Doctor of FTL Communications, even had her as a radio-type talk show host! (In Star Trek VI, Uhura was seen as commenting that she was about to give a lecture at Starfleet Academy, alluding to either an invitation to do so or she held a professorship at the Academy. It could also be argued that she served with Kirk, etc, etc... but I'm an optimist) :) If only some of the non-filmed stories made it to film, but the audience at the time that NBC was attempting to please was not ready (in the general sense) for such concepts. >I believe the change in the tone of Star Trek came about because so many of >the people who were keeping it alive, writing stories, going to conventions >were women who were giving themselves the opportunity to imagine themselves >having adventures. It was not Rodenberry, who was actually more conventional >than we may like to think. I would have agreed, except that if you read the first draft of 'Wagon Train to the Stars', you'll note that women made up a /half/ of the USS Yorktown's crew compliment (the original name wasn't Enterprise). When NBC got a hold of it, they changed it to 1/4 (The Savage Curtain). I firmly beleive that Roddenberry was a feminist (in the dictionary definition of the term [ie: women's equality]). On the other hand, I've read some stuff he's written which would make you think otherwise... in fact, there's a solid point to the opposite in the book 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'... in the scene where Admiral Lori Ciana dies, it's noted that Roddenberry 'punished' her for tricking Kirk into accepting the promotion to Admiral (outlined in a later novel). In 1987, when he presented TNG to the channels who were interested in picking the syndicated episodes, he mentioned that because the show was syndicated he felt free to truly capture the vision he wanted without fear of reprisal from a network. And so, we saw a female security chief (Tasha Yar), a female doctor (Beverly Crusher), a female chief engineer (Chief McDougan, from "The Naked Now"), female planetary leaders ("Haven") , and a female starship captain (who was responsible for shattering Kirk's record in "Conspiracy"), and so on and so forth... and this was in the first season. Eventually, we saw women in power positions (Starfleet Admirals, more Planetary Leaders, Scientists, Engineers, Ambassadors, Diplomats, etc, etc, etc). Next Generation's first, second, and third seasons were under Roddenberry's /direct/ supervision. In retrospect, the /only/ anti-feministic character I saw was the ship's counselor, Deanna Troi, in the first and second season. It wasn't until she began to evolve as a character in the third season that I began to see her as an asset rather than an annoyance. Roddenberry wasn't perfect. ;) Humanity is far from perfect to begin with. I'm of a beleif that focusing on male or female equality tends to lead to male or female superiority if not taken in intervals of moderation. I beleive in both genders ability to accomplish tasks or acheiving the same goals. When I scribe my stories, I've attempted to focus on a female perspective as well as a male, providing an equal balance in point-of-view and emotions. MDg +-Michael-Daniel-Garcia--(aka-The-Otaking)--------------------------+ | Founder, OTAKING.org Email: otaking@otaking.org | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Legends.... are the spice of the universe... because they have a | | way of sometimes coming true." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Game Hosting * Anime Fandom * Science Fiction * Music * Linux | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:04:32 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <7bc5924a.35d26c32@aol.com> (DMadrone@AOL.COM) Demetria M. Shew wrote: >I keep hearing this from younger women, and it surprises me. Feminism is, >and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that >are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is >a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to >Life than simple equality. Fine, but can we start with equality? E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:13:43 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ME Hunter wrote: > > Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > >I keep hearing this from younger women, and it surprises me. Feminism is, > >and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that > >are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is > >a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to > >Life than simple equality. > > Fine, but can we start with equality? > > E. Sorry, feminism is about equal rights. I agree with E., nothing 'simple' about equality. It's a good goal, and far from being achieved yet. All the rest/struggle is fine, but let's not forget the end goal. Marie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:20:22 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: 1999 Science Fiction Research Association Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, just had a mail returned, couldn't find your address.I wanted some info about your organization. M. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:39:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: _I Who Have Never Known Men_ In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19980812084405.412f692e@pop.kent.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Heather MacLean wrote: > > At 11:04 AM 8/9/98 -0500, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > >SPOILERS ************************************************** > > > > I found this book to be very much like what I've read of other French > feminist "SF," such as that of Monique Wittig, or Christiane > Rochefort--writers who do not self-identify -as- SF writers. They tend to > write outside of the genre, in a kind of blend between fantasy and > surrealism, especially in the fact that they don't bother to posit a > coherent textual world, i.e., one where cause and effect are consistent in > the political, economical, historical, etc. background. This may be why you > felt bereft of "science fictional" answers... What this "style" does, > however, is allow for a thought experiment that bleeds into emotional areas. > The problem with this style of writing is that it frequently leaves the > reader unable to really test hir own reactions against those of the > characters, since sie doesn't know all the background. I've read Wittig (Les Guerilleres?), but too long ago to remember her well enough to comment. Don't know Rochefort. Is her SF available in English? My French is now far too rusty to attempt any serious reading in it. You used the phrase "thought experiment" which, of course, automatically triggers thoughts of Le Guin. She usually gives a bit more of the "political...historical, etc. background" than is found here, but the story has something of the feel of her work. If this had been published as by her it wouldn't have seemed much of a departure. To some extent I like the mystery of it all. Another writer who does this, in a very different context, is the horror writer Robert Aickman. Strange events occur and you never find out why. One thing that kept me reading was, I think, the excellence of the translation by Ros Schwartz, which seemed appropriately terse and to the point, mostly colloquial, but with occasional interesting oddities. I know that you yourself do French/English translation--I believe I read an article which you translated in the latest Extrapolation--how did you react to the language? > I would read this novelette as an experiment with raising a girl child > without male "prejudice." What I did find fascinating was the complete > -lack- of us/them mentality along a gender line. Even though later on she > finds that some of the camps held male prisoners (with male guards, I > assume--though the lack of any differentiation in objects/clothing left > behind might not really be an indicator of the guards' sex), one would > expect a child growing up in this situation to automatically have some kind > of fascination about the Others on the free side--it might not have to be > the hatred the other women feel, since they have known freedom before, and > the child, not. I have mixed feelings about seeing the book as "an experiment with raising a girl child without male `prejudice.'" On the one hand this is clearly true. The child grows up with no sense whatsover of gender-based limitations. On the other hand, she grows up living such a fractional life, missing so much. She barely knows what it is to be a human being, let alone a woman. Also, one could argue that the other women only marginally raised her at all. For the most part she raised herself. In some ways shes kind of like a feral child. > I also found the lack of "typical" feminine "emotionalism" an interesting > characteristic in this child--even though later on she realizes, by > contrast, that she did indeed experience emotions. The emphasis Harpman puts > on logic and intelligence, and on "mathematical" abilities (stereotypically > male traits) is an interesting bias, seemingly stereotypical in its own > right (kneejerk counter-reaction to patriarchalism?). Oh--and her ability to > become the "colony's" carpenter, too. > Yes, she does lack "`typical' feminine `emotionalism'" but she still seems clearly female to me. I don't know why exactly. Her primary emotion, at least through the first part of the novel, seems to be anger, even rage, albeit strongly repressed. I have to admit that I kept expecting at least a few of the women to go off like bombs, yelling and screaming and throwing themselves at the bars in an attempt to get some reaction from the guards. There are hints of this kind of behavior, perhaps, but they're understated by the narrator. One thing I found disconcerting was the ability of the guards to be so machine-like, to not react. The child, not knowing any different, describes this behavior, but doesn't realize how strange it is. She's trying to get inside the youngest guard's head, to shatter his facade, but we never really know whether she succeeds or not. The only emotions we're told that he shows are a bit of tiredness or tension at the end of a long duty period. The guards' perfect or near-perfect indifference to the women in the cage adds to the strangeness and makes me question their humanity. > >One thing that fascinated me was the way the protagonist, the child, was > >able to essentially bootstrap herself into a mental state where she could > >feel some sense of triumph, first by trying to disconcert the guard by > >staring at him, and then defeating what appeared to be an intentional > >plot to keep them ignorant of how time was passing, by becoming an > >automatic counter and thereby discovering that the guards deliberately > >varied the time between meals and lights out. > > > I thought it interesting that she would postulate that she -could- affect > the young guard that way; presumably she did so because she was influenced > by her co-prisoners. Indeed, there is nothing in -her- limited experience to > even tell her that these guards are human, or "like her" in any way. She > certainly does not seem over-distressed by the fact that -they- look at her > all the time (see lack of concern over the toilet business)--why would she > assume the reverse? One of the limitations (or strengths, depending on how you look at it) of the first person limited narrator, no? Having only her viewpoint gives us tunnel vision. We can't know about what she wouldn't notice. > > >My wife, Sandra Lindow, who read the book before I did, and whose review > >of I Who Have Never Known Men will be appearing in the Science Fiction > >Research Association Review, believes that the child was autistic, > >whether from birth or as a result of traumas that occurred before she was > >imprisoned with the other women. Evidence--the automatic counting ability > >and her almost complete aversion to touch. She was also taken with the > >book's connections with Kafka's The Penal Colony. > > > Interesting postulation about autism, though I'm not sure--given the lack of > coherent cause and effect relationships elsewhere in this book--that such an > approach would really help clarify things for me. How did Sandra find the > autism explained the child's reactions more? Did she think the autism had a > specific purpose within the frame of the book? > Sandy's in bed so I can't ask her about this, but one of the things I know about autistic people, even those who overcome their disability enough to succeed in the world, is that they can't make human connections very easily. They often hate to be touched and they frequently hate to look people in the face. They often lack the ability to understand the actions of other human beings and see other people's most normal actions as bizarre and beyond explanation. They find normal human sensations to be an emotional and sensual overload and often prefer to live lives that are stripped to the bone, even to the point of preferring that their physical accomodations (ie. bedrooms, apartments, work spaces) be minimal and lacking in visual complexity. Although enormously inhibited in certain ways, they sometimes lack other inhibitions (perhaps because they aren't clear about the way things are "supposed" to be) and can be enormously creative. They often have to create entire new ways of doing things to get their needs met. I once read about an autistic woman who couldn't stand to be touched by other people,but felt that she needed more love and consolation than she was able to get so she built herself a hugging machine! This is not to say that the child fits the description of the autistic person perfectly, but some of the traits seem to be there. > >Any book like this, where we never get an explanation for events, would > >seem to lend itself to all sorts of symbolic and psychological > >interpretations. Why do all of the guards carry copies of a book on > >gardening? Why is the library full of books on aeronautics? What killed > >the bus-load of guards? > > > Yeah--good questions, but part of what I find frustrating about this style > of writing--you can postulate a whole bunch, but you can't determine > anything with certainty, because of the lack of cause and effect, again. > Gardening: Voltaire? All is for the best in the best of all worlds? > Aeronautics: to further the impression that this indeed was some kind of > extra-terrestrial colony? Perhaps the guards thought that humans were > plants... As for the killing of the guards, the set-up (underground bunkers, > wailing sirens) seemed to point towards some kind of nuclear disaster... > *shrug* but again, considering lack of evidence, it's difficult, and perhaps > irrelevant, to speculate about such motives. I dunno--am I totally off-base > here? I still found it an interesting book... The idea of reading I Who Have Never Known Men as in part a commentary on Voltaire is neat. I'll have to think about that further. I'm reminded of the feelings of despair I had at the end of a television version of Candide that I saw once. I can't remember who the actor was off hand, Jason Robards perhaps, but that line about tilling our gardens seemed so sad, the resignation of the non-believer, perhaps, realizing that this is all there is to life, that all of his struggles are in some sense meaningless. Even when you get out of prison, you're just entering a larger prison, as the women realize in Harpman's novel. Of course I suppose it could be argued that this interpretation of Candide has more Sartre in it than Voltaire! To the extent that a rationale can be created for the novel's set up I'll postulate an interplanetary war with this planet being kept as a secret prison planet by one side. The planet is attacked by the other side (the sirens) and the guards flee off planet in spaceships, abandoning their prisoners. The weapons aren't nuclear but act instantaneously and only on the surface. We can postulate some sort of field effect or microwave radiation or something that would kill instantly and leave no obvious residue. The busload of dead guards were simply too far away from a spaceship and got left behind. The other side, however, isn't necessarily the good guys, and doesn't care about the fate of the prisoners either. Ha, I'll write my own novel--I Who Have Never Known What Harpman had in Mind! > Heather > =) Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:07:47 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Catherine Asaro's SF In-Reply-To: <35C2A7E5.1F00@sff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Two weeks ago I asked for info on Catherine Asaro's books about the "Skolian Empire" universe. I've now read all three of the books ("Primary Inversion", "Catch the Lightning", "The Last Hawk"). My reaction: CA has now joined the three other authors on my fiction "instant buy" list. I've never read as good and readable a description of such a coherent and internal self-consistent universe. CA's explanations are understandable (without being patronizing), her writing is impeccable, her plotting is immaculate, exciting and imaginative, and her characters are real people who are portrayed "warts and all". The array of genres covered (scifi, romance, adventure, time travel, science & technology) is large and in the hands of a lesser writer could have been confusing. This combined with the detailed universe and the amount of exposition makes the books _in my opinion_ unsuitable for reading in quick snatches. I found trying to read "Primary Inversion" during short waits at airports or on short flights largely spoiled the pleasure I got out of the book. She blends romance and SF well so that the join is seamless. Her "romance" is maturely sensuous and erotic without being objectionable. Her "heroines" are strong women - even when immature - and, the romance/association between hero and heroine is one of partnership, not female dependency. And now for the minor gripe: I got the impression that there were lots of deliberate loose ends in the novels - "Primary Inversion" in particular - as teasers for later entries into the series. I don't think this is a good idea for 2 reasons: firstly, it prevents each book from being stand-alone, limiting the potential readership to existing fans. Secondly many people, like myself, find too many teasers uncomfortable and simply stop reading a series until all are available. All in all, though I found Catherine Asaro's books among the best SF I've read. My own patriarch, who's a fanatic fan of J C Cherryh, found CA's books highly enjoyable as have several older women friends. The really irritating thing is there are only 3 books (a fourth is due in November) in the series which left me hankering for more. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:08:14 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 12 Aug 98, at 17:57, Joel VanLaven wrote: > I understand your feelings. However, I disagree that Voyager is a flop > (In my mind it is/was) because it has a female captain. If it is because > of the captain I think it is because of the acting and characterization of > the captain rather than the fact that she is a woman. Actually, I think > it really ends up being due to a combination of bad writing and acting, a > lack of anything new to say, and competition from better shows. I've got to agree with you here. If I want to find out whether sexism is to blame for TV shows or films failing, I always check with my macho teenage male acquaintances on the grounds that if anyone is sexist, they would be. My ST "expert" series is a 15-yo boy who - in his own words - is the world's greatest ST fan and who's seen every one of the ST episodes from videos floating around in the "boy's underground". His opinion (and that of a straw poll of his friends) is that the STV female captain ("Kathryn Janeway") is a prize contender for the "wooden Indian" award. Her worst and most risible performance was apparently in an episode called "STV: Time and again". Other comments were "bad scripts" and "cheesy special effects" (especially in "STV: Eye of the needle"). All of these remarks have been echoed on another list I'm on. But to come back to the topic: from reading through email files, I thought that these teenage boys were perfectly comfortable with strong female characters provided that the scripts avoided such incongruities as a 5' female knocking a 7' male with a single tap. They evaluated the characters, stories and action, and their place in the ST universe surprisingly maturely. I never saw one crude or sexist comment about ST characters (although I saw plenty about other TV characters - "Allie McBeal" and PMS for example). If teenage boys who are as macho as they come don't object to strong female characters, I think that STV's failure has to be laid at some other door. Again I wonder sometimes whether the younger members of the patriarchy are quite so "anti-female" as many feminists believe. AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:08:42 +0200 Reply-To: gaudit@global.co.za Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 12 Aug 98, at 19:57, Joel VanLaven wrote: > In my opinion B5 has alot of hard science and not much soft science. > This is as opposed to Voyager say which seemed to me to flip those two > having alot of soft science and not much hard science. > I think each can get in the way of someone appreciating the story, the > real underlying stuff going on (if it is there at all). I (and probably > many of my compatriots) cannot handle soft science very well. Some people > (perhaps your mom) cannot handle hard science that well. I forgot to mention this in a previous post, but for those people who'd like to get to know the ST universe, there was/is a weekly(?) series of magazines called the "The Official Star Trek Fact Files" which contains all sorts of details of the "science", characters, timelines, equipment, episodes etc. I was very impressed with the highly detailed plans and cutways of, for example, the ships. The series is written in easy-to-understand language and is PROFUSELY AND BEAUTIFULLY illustrated. > For instance, the TNG episode where Picard gets his flute. As an example of how useful this series was I found out that the episode referred to is probably the one called "Inner Light". AJ ----------------------------------------- gaudit@global.co.za ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 07:35:41 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199808130636.XAA18198@otaking.otaking.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Roddenberry was a feminist in the same sense that Heinlein was a feminist, which very few people today would recognize as such but which I consider a legitimate form of feminism (though I have many disagreements with it.) It's the WWII Generation's version: women can fill any role demanded of them by the crisis (Rosie the Riveter, Margaret on M*A*S*H) and in that role they are admirable. But first and foremost, they are and must be team players - which includes taking a back seat to the men in charge if need be. And most women really want to be nurturers and would be very good at it if only the crisis would end. Put this in historical perspective and you can see where they're coming from. Attempts to carry this paradigm over into a non-crisis era is what resulted in the Feminine Mystique. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:00:33 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199808130804.EAA30882@apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, ME Hunter wrote: > Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > >I keep hearing this from younger women, and it surprises me. Feminism is, > >and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that > >are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is > >a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to > >Life than simple equality. > > Fine, but can we start with equality? > This has been one of the ongoing debates about feminism once we had taken care of some of the obvious and worst sexist practices of the 50s. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:15:42 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: > I just want to clarify I was referring to hard science fiction not hard > science fact, which if you are like me, I do enjoy a good science > book/magazine/television show, but sometimes do not want to deal with hard > science fiction when I want to be entertained. Yes, hard science fiction. Fair enough and perfectly reasonable. > But yes, either can get in the way of the plot or story line. Or if you > are like my mom, it will totally go over her head, she ignores it, and > goes on to the more important aspects of the relations between the > characters. Right, but if the science is important to the story there will be problems for someone like your mom. > Finding what is false or untrue about the science in science fiction is > fruitless in my opinion. Such thinking distracts from the story and you > lose the point of the show or book. But each to his/her own-. Yet I cannot help it. I do not try to, it is like bad music or fingernails on a blackboard. My subconscious screeches out in pain and removes me from any revere I might have been in. Obviously not all "soft" science fiction affects me like that but much of what I saw of Voyager was atrocious. It is like trying to listen to music while someone is walking around and falling into pots and pans. (at least for me) It is possible to shut it out and concentrate on the music but only if the music is really good and it still takes alot of work. -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:42:06 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Heinlein feminist? HA! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I disagree that Heinlein was a feminist. Besides Podkayne of Mars, which is on my personal to-be-burned list-all his last books dealt with his obsession that it was crucial for girls to start having babies in their early teens, with no consideration of the medical results and despite the fact that most of the girls in question would have a much longer period of fertility than women today. And do you remember in Red Planet when he was talking about how the age of majority was artificial and how any boy old enough to fight, and any girl old enough to cook and tend babies, was an adult? Or in Rolling Stones, where the twins are working and their older sister Meade babytending, despite the fact that she is a trained astrogator. That one ends with the family worried about going out to the asteroids because she might have trouble catching a husband there. Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:40:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! Comments: To: lynnx@MC.NET MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heinlein's insistence on women=babies always irritated me, too, but I think you have to remember that he was writing over a long period of time, with consciousness shifting the while. Look who ended up accepted as the boss in The Number of the Beast! (Even if she did promptly have a baby...sigh!) I had and have numerous problems with Heinlein, but there are rich rewards to be found as well. The man's imagination was a treasure box, and his knack of showing different slants on taken-for-granted ideas was a delight. I would trot out the cliche about babies and bathwater, but it may be inappropriate in the context! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:29:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Anybody else seen the essay on "The Ideology of Robert A. Heinlein" by Barton Paul Levenson in the April 1998 (#116) issue of The New York Review of Science Fiction? He covers Heinleinian feminism briefly but rather well. He slams Podkayne as a lapse from early movement away from sexism, but posits that "Friday" can be seen as a sort of "apology for 'Podkayne,'" containing a section about Friday's forced divorce that is "one of the best and most moving indictments ever written of the cruelty of discrimination for stupid reasons... (But) the key to Heinlein's elitism lies in the term 'stupid.' Discrimination for *intelligent* reasons is something he always favored." (For ex., advocating a math test for voter registration in an essay, or restricting full citizenship to veterans in "Starship Troopers.") Anyway, Levenson concludes that Heinlein was a fascist, which (if you buy that analysis) would shed some light on Heinlein's views of women's roles. -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:49:26 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@mc.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Friday is one of the books I mentioned. There is a girl who has one baby after another, starting at 13, and brings them home to Mom. Mom never seems to mention birth control, abortion, or taking responsibility for one's offspring, nor is there any indication she sees anything wrong in her foster daughter's behaviour. Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:20:03 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/98 1:05:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG writes: << Fine, but can we start with equality? >> Well...if you want to do that, what are your options? Laws? OK, fine. And then what? Enforcement of the laws? And what is equality? Do you really want to get to work 60 hour weeks in an extremely competative world? Do you want to do science the old way of publish-or-perish? Do you want to live in the same culture as men, use the same language they do? I still think an egalitarian society requires some heavy changes from our current culture, so to get to equality it is necessary to begin with change. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:26:01 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/98 1:26:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hable@BIGFOOT.COM writes: << Sorry, feminism is about equal rights. I agree with E., nothing 'simple' about equality. It's a good goal, and far from being achieved yet. >> Well, OK. There is nothing wrong with you wanting to feel that way about it. But I don't feel that way. Equality IS a good goal: it is NOT simple, and one of the reasons it is far from being achieved is beause there is so much more involved. It still surprises me to hear that feminism is about equal rights, period. But, hey, as long as we are all working towards better understanding and fuller life...more power to all of us. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:02:45 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: BDG Alien Influences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-06 20:24:22 EDT, you write: << I can't believe the white picket fence image slipped by me, but you're absolutely right about that one. It's as if Rusch, generally rather subtle as someone else pointed out, meant to bludgeon us with this analogy. >> Of course, it's easy for us, steeped as we are in our own culture, to let such things happen without noticing. For example, Spock says in the Changeling episode of Star Trek, "This is not the device we launched from Earth." Spock wouldn't say "we" because he's a Vulcan, but the writer was an Earthling! barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:25:43 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: Kris Rusch's writing speed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-07 10:35:55 EDT, you write: << And Star Trek books, by their very nature, are not likely to sell more copies just because a certain writer's name is on them, with the possible exception of Peter David or Judy and Gar Reeves-Stevens. >> I accept your critique of my statements about speed and quality of writing. I do agree that a skilled, experienced writer can do good work quickly. I am concerned mainly about the quality of the Star Trek novels in general: I used to look forward to each new book, but for at least the last couple of years most of them have been a chore to read. Have I changed, or has the quality of the books changed? Not that they were ever great, but they used to be fun to read. Yes, I'll always pick up a Peter David book and love it. But I have not enjoyed the work the Reeves-Stevens have been doing with Shatner. What about you? barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:48:31 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: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Hi again...the scientist can't help to comment on this... > hunter@APOCALYPSE.ORG writes: > > << Fine, but can we start with equality? >> > > > Well...if you want to do that, what are your options? Laws? OK, fine. And > then what? Enforcement of the laws? Laws would be nice. Enforcement would be a fantasy-come-true. > > And what is equality? >Do you really want to get to work 60 hour weeks in an > extremely competative world? Yes. If looking at Star Trek as a hopeful view of the future, I do believe that if those folks did not work 60 hours a week in a competative world little to nothing would be accomplished. Accomplishment takes hard work, long hours, and lots of support!! >Do you want to do science the old way of > publish-or-perish? That is in place for a reason. If not encouraged and/or forced to publish, some people would do nothing, or, worse yet, would refuse to share icebreaking knowledge derived from thier research, sit on their fat duffs and do nothing!! >Do you want to live in the same culture as men, use the > same language they do? I still think an egalitarian society requires some > heavy changes from our current culture, so to get to equality it is necessary > to begin with change. > > Madrone While I am certain the future is an extrapolation of the present, "joining the current ranks" is an excellent place to begin change. Infiltrate and improve. One step at a time. It is possible!! These changes are not possible, either, if no one wants to take the time to take on and change the status quo. I consider each day as an opportunity to plant another feminist seed in another allegedly-open- but-really-shut-tight-mind. And those that are resistant, well, I enjoy tormenting regularly ;-> Penny ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:53:17 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: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Apologies...I read my messages out of order...I am with you, Madrone, equality IS far more complex than equal rights...Penny > Date sent: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:26:01 EDT > Send reply to: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" > > From: "Demetria M. Shew" > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > In a message dated 8/13/98 1:26:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hable@BIGFOOT.COM > writes: > > << Sorry, feminism is about equal rights. I agree with E., nothing > 'simple' about equality. It's a good goal, and far from being achieved > yet. >> > > Well, OK. There is nothing wrong with you wanting to feel that way about it. > But I don't feel that way. Equality IS a good goal: it is NOT simple, and > one of the reasons it is far from being achieved is beause there is so much > more involved. It still surprises me to hear that feminism is about equal > rights, period. But, hey, as long as we are all working towards better > understanding and fuller life...more power to all of us. > Madrone > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:37:04 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199808130804.EAA30882@apocalypse.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I always thought that we are all equal under the law and therefore we already start as equals. My .2 worth, Bertina On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, ME Hunter wrote: > Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > >I keep hearing this from younger women, and it surprises me. Feminism is, > >and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that > >are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is > >a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to > >Life than simple equality. > > Fine, but can we start with equality? > > E. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:45:54 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Its interesting that you have difficulty seperating fiction from fact. I never thought science fiction was purely supposed to be about the truth and nothing but the truth. I took a course in college about Fantastic Fiction and it was defined as a story that was written in such a way as to enable the reader to knowingly suspend their own disbelief. To me that is the essense of fiction, especially fiction that is futuristic or fantasy or both. Maybe reading up on the history of fantastic fiction-which includes fantasy, horror, science fiction- you may be able to do so. I love to read about science, science fiction, fantasy, all kinds of fantastic fiction. That might be because I was an English Major. Were you a science major? Bertina On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Joel VanLaven wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: > > > I just want to clarify I was referring to hard science fiction not hard > > science fact, which if you are like me, I do enjoy a good science > > book/magazine/television show, but sometimes do not want to deal with hard > > science fiction when I want to be entertained. > > Yes, hard science fiction. Fair enough and perfectly reasonable. > > > But yes, either can get in the way of the plot or story line. Or if you > > are like my mom, it will totally go over her head, she ignores it, and > > goes on to the more important aspects of the relations between the > > characters. > > Right, but if the science is important to the story there will be problems > for someone like your mom. > > > Finding what is false or untrue about the science in science fiction is > > fruitless in my opinion. Such thinking distracts from the story and you > > lose the point of the show or book. But each to his/her own-. > > Yet I cannot help it. I do not try to, it is like bad music or > fingernails on a blackboard. My subconscious screeches out in pain and > removes me from any revere I might have been in. Obviously not all > "soft" science fiction affects me like that but much of what I saw of > Voyager was atrocious. It is like trying to listen to music while someone > is walking around and falling into pots and pans. (at least for me) It > is possible to shut it out and concentrate on the music but only if > the music is really good and it still takes alot of work. > > -- Joel VanLaven > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:50:08 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! Comments: To: Frances Green In-Reply-To: <19980813.114011.-3802991.0.jjggww@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Id have to agree, I have only liked certain Heinlein stories for that very reason. There were certain male-oriented misogynistic view points that I had difficulty with. Bertina ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:04:48 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Aug 98 16:45:54 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >I never thought science fiction was purely supposed to be about the truth >and nothing but the truth. I took a course in college about Fantastic >Fiction and it was defined as a story that was written in such a way as to >enable the reader to knowingly suspend their own disbelief. Ah, but if the science depicted contradicts something that you know to be true, it's very hard to suspend disbelief. I work in a computer networking research lab, and when I read books featuring computer technology that's inaccurate it really breaks the flow for me. Imagine a book in which you're casually informed that the speed of light is 25 miles per hour. (Ursula Le Guin wrote a fascinating short story exploring what life would be like in such a world -- but imagine that the author clearly expected you to believe that that *is* the case; imagine, further, that some plot device turned on the 25 mph speed of light, based on the assumption that nothing else would change.) Then that suspension of disbelief becomes much, much harder to deal with. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:31:34 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: BDG Alien Influences In-Reply-To: <26b903b6.35d33856@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Unless, maybe, he meant "we" as in "the federation" or "starfleet"? That would depend on what device that was launched from earth he was referring to... -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Barbara R. Hume [mailto:Lurima@AOL.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 12:03 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Alien Influences > > > In a message dated 98-08-06 20:24:22 EDT, you write: > > << > I can't believe the white picket fence image slipped by me, > but you're > absolutely right about that one. It's as if Rusch, > generally rather > subtle as someone else pointed out, meant to bludgeon us > with this analogy. > >> > Of course, it's easy for us, steeped as we are in our own > culture, to let such > things happen without noticing. For example, Spock says in > the Changeling > episode of Star Trek, "This is not the device we launched > from Earth." Spock > wouldn't say "we" because he's a Vulcan, but the writer was > an Earthling! > > barbara > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:08:56 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/98 12:50:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, PENEL@CALC.VET.UGA.EDU writes: << That is in place for a reason. If not encouraged and/or forced to publish, some people would do nothing, or, worse yet, would refuse to share icebreaking knowledge derived from their research, sit on their fat duffs and do nothing!! >> The scientist cannot help but reply, too. If someone would do nothing, or refuse to share knowledge...oh, heavens. Forcing someone to publish won't make a good scientist of them. Research is its own goal and reward. One does it out of excitement, out of a desire to find out, out of a desire to solve. The publish or perish only selects those who can really best play the game. I, too, live every day trying to be an example, to be both true to science and true to some kind of human life. I've done 80 hour weeks and you know...if that extends for any period of time, you can't have a life. You can't have friends, or family, or even a dog and take decent care of it. And it becomes hard to teach science, because people get so they think only those who are obsessed with science can learn it. I feel that feminism...not just equality, but a change in enculturation...is essential to our ever finding a way to do real science, not science for a buck, or science to sell but science at the end of dreams and life-work. But again, it takes all of us. I commend your daily routine AND your occasional tormentations. Don't stop! Was it Elizabeth Cady Stanton who said: "We can't fail". Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:01:06 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joel VanLaven Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Bertina Miller wrote: > Its interesting that you have difficulty seperating fiction from fact. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I am not talking about science fact at all but the logical coherence and "reasonableness" of "hard science" within fiction which may or may not be fictional. I don't have any problem with fictional science including magic, transporters, forse fields, FTL travel, other dimensions, telepathy, etc. After all, I read SF... > never thought science fiction was purely supposed to be about the truth > and nothing but the truth. I took a course in college about Fantastic > Fiction and it was defined as a story that was written in such a way as to > enable the reader to knowingly suspend their own disbelief. To me that is > the essense of fiction, especially fiction that is futuristic or fantasy > or both. Yes, fine. I am defining "soft science" within fiction as science that is absurd (for one reason or another) and as such disables some readers from suspending disbelief. For example, a fictional scientific premise that is contradictory, badly thought out, obviously inserted by the author as a way out of a situation, and so on (essentially that rings false) makes the alternate reality of the story flawed and impossible rather than simply different. It is like in logic, the scientifc premises of the story are like the suppositions of the argument and the story is like the argument. If the argument doesn't hold together it fails. If any of the suppositions are false then the argument is fine but does not nescesarily prove the point. I can handle false suppositions (as long as they aren't contradictory) but I cannot handle an invalid argument (story). > includes fantasy, horror, science fiction- you may be able to do so. > I love to read about science, science fiction, fantasy, all kinds of > fantastic fiction. That might be because I was an English Major. > > Were you a science major? No. I was a math and computer science major :). I took NO science (computer science didn't count as science) in college. (unless you count electronics...) In fact, I went to a liberal-arts college and took more english, philosophy, history, and women's studies courses than anything else. I think what is more important is my meyers-briggs personality type. I am an INTJ (rational, mastermind) with a well-developed F (underneath I am a T but on tests I come across as an INFJ(idealist, counselor) or on the line) A famous example of an INTJ is Ayn Rand, a famous example of an INFJ is Gandhi. (as available at http://keirsey.com) -- Joel VanLaven ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:12:29 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/98 1:37:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: << I always thought that we are all equal under the law and therefore we already start as equals. >> But there's always the problem with enforcement. Under the constitution, any citizen could vote in a national election...but until 1921 when suffrage was acknowledged for women, if you voted, you got arrested and (maybe) jailed. See Stanton. It took what, 150 years to do something so simple as get acknowledged for enfranchisement when it was there in black and white? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:06:14 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Heinlein's attitude toward women to say the least confuses me. Granted his imagination is vivid and vast. But some of the depictions of women rankled me personally. Does anyone else recall the scene where Friday is raped? It's been a while since I last read Friday, but as I recall Friday gets her revenge (which I liked), but says to the rapists something along the lines of, I'm mad at you not because you raped me, but you raped me before letting me pee first. :see Vivian scratching her head: then there was another scene in Stranger in a Strange Land where one of Heinlein's characters (male or female, I do not recall) basically gives the opinion that a woman upon being raped should 'lie back and enjoy it'. :see Vivian fuming: If my assertions are inaccurate I apologize, I promise I will go back and find the pertinent passages to make doubly sure either way. Thanks, Vivian ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:34:33 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: <1f1f711.35d364ce@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Enforcement of equality is exactly what is sparking the debate over quotas and affirmative action. Some feminists do not believe in quotas and some do. Right now the debates are more fundamental to ones way of life rather than how equal you are to your neighbor, coworker or boss. Bertina On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > In a message dated 8/13/98 1:37:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > bmiller@MEDMAIL.MCG.EDU writes: > > << I always thought that we are all equal under the law and therefore we > already start as equals. >> > > But there's always the problem with enforcement. Under the constitution, any > citizen could vote in a national election...but until 1921 when suffrage was > acknowledged for women, if you voted, you got arrested and (maybe) jailed. > See Stanton. It took what, 150 years to do something so simple as get > acknowledged for enfranchisement when it was there in black and white? > > Madrone > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:52:31 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Aug 98 19:34:33 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Enforcement of equality is exactly what is sparking the debate over quotas >and affirmative action. Some feminists do not believe in quotas and some >do. I think this is a vast oversimplification. "Enforcement of equality" means forcing people not to discriminate. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible. "Affirmative action" is what I would classify as "redress". I certainly don't believe in quotas, but I believe in affirmative action (in which if two people have *equal* qualifications the more under-represented group gets the job, the school position, whatever) *because* we have failed to enforce equality. If every person in this country got the exact sa me chance to excel then I would say that there should be no affirmative action. But we aren't there yet. >Right now the debates are more fundamental to ones way of life rather >than how equal you are to your neighbor, coworker or boss. I don't understand what this means. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:50:44 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek..+ B5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bertina wrote: >> >> [snip] >> > Voyager's popularity I think has been much lower in viewership for the >> > very fact a woman is in charge. Many male friends of mine tell me that >> > they do not like Voyager as much as Next Generation and only a few will >> > admit that it is because a female is captain but others have admitted that >> > to me. (snip) Joel wrote: > (snip) Actually, I think>> it really ends up being due to a combination of bad writing and acting, a>> lack of anything new to say, and competition from better shows. >> >> I (and a number of my friends) were very psyched about Voyager. We were >> psyched about a female captain. ...(snip) Taking into consideration the existence of>> Babylon 5 and DS9 (finally overcoming its bad start-up time) who needed>> Voyager? >> Bettina replied: >Well, I think your bringing Babylon 5 into it is interesting. I tried to >get into B5 and found the show more like the original ST and in that >sense, more oriented toward men-(snip)> >I also find men prefer B5 over Voyager and DS9. Bettina - I read recently that B5 was the most popular of the three current SF TV shows amongst men, whereas DS9 and Voyager were evenly split amongst women viewers. As a woman, I originally liked all 3 for different reasons in their first series, but would have to put DS9 as my favourite for its characterisation and development of characters as real-people. DS9 is also the least "propaganda' style format of American sci-fi, probably because not all the major characters are Star-fleet personnel, and the writers have actually developed some of the bad-guy characters as well. The author of the article I read suspected it was a case of: "women prefer women characters, men prefer men characters" Babylon 5 in my mind, started off OK with its women characters, but they all quickly deteriorated into boring, weak, spineless and mindless soap-opera characters, and so did the plot. I ended up losing interest in Babylon 5 after the second series. I didnt like Voyager at first, not because it had a woman captain, but like Joel mentioned, it was unfortunately due to poor writing of plots and character development. I kept getting annoyed with it, but I stuck it out for the sake of knowing how the story eventually pans out. I prefer Bellana Torres to Janeway as a female character though:) I find Voyager a re-hash of the Original ST series, and TNG, - especially in the first 2-3 series, (same as TNG did, with poor writing, and I hated that character Deanna Troy with a passion, but her mother is cool:) but in the 4th series as in TNG, Voyager has started to 'pick-up' and gain some speed. The article I read was also interesting in determining men and women's preferences of other-gender characters. For example, in DS9 women preferred Kira to Dax - but men prefer Dax. Men prefer Sheridan in B5 to Sisko in DS9 - but women prefer Sisko, and so on:) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:10:35 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Victoria Somogyi Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I will certainly not argue that Voyager is flawless. Far from it. But it has women characters of child-bearing age who are defined by what they do and not primarily by their relationships to others. That is exceedingly rare on television. I don't think men that don't like Voyager don't like it solely because there is a female captain. I'm not going to defend the writing or acting. But it seems reasonable to me that men wouldn't enjoy there being a woman in charge in the same way that I do. It is an opportunity for me to enter a world where women have power and no one questions it. I can accept a lot of silliness for that. Most of the men I know who watch the show complain about Janeway's character. They have told me the Captain is too maternal, too nice, and not devious enough. I'm fascinated by this, but, as they are my co-workers, I don't feel I can ask more. But I'd like to. What are they looking for in a powerful woman character? Is she not sexual enough? Too good? Are powerful women only acceptable/interesting if they are evil and/or manipulative? Victoria VEASomogyi@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:38:57 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: Shadow Man Availability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I've just located Shadow Man at Andromeda in the UK. It's hardback at £9.99. I'm buying Wild Seed at the same time so whatever you all choose. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 07:27:28 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Alien Influences MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I found the book yesterday and spent the evening gulping it down. Some comments. Is it a feminist novel? Not particularly. As far as gender roles, personalities, etc go, it's a fairly typical novel of the '90s: any one of those characters could have been either male or female. Someone on the list noted that there were no female heroes; they ranged from damaged through villainous. But the same is true of the men. What I DID notice is that nobody, male or female, was doing any caretaking or any nurturing. The cloests anyone came was a feeble attempt at protection. It was also obvious to me, though Rusch never used the term, that the children had all been sexually abused by their addict parents; some, possibly, sadistically abused. It goes without saying they were totally neglected while their parents were getting high. And she shows a hysterically anti-child larger culture. Granted, the Dancer 8 are singled out for special treatment. Granted, it's due in large part to the Salt Juice Conspiracy. Still, everyone - media, public opinion, the criminal justice system - automatically assumes these young children are hardened, vicious career criminals who did what they did out of sheer nastiness and depravity. The guards treat them like serial killers with practiced ease, and nobody is upset at seeing people so young treated like this. And, the most telling point, it's a culture where children below the age of puberty are routinely sent to a penal colony labor camp - a *gulag*. IN some cultures, people would be upset. They'd think there must be a reason, and look for it. They'd automatically check for child abuse in the home. And seeing the Dancer's life cycle, they'd wonder if the children were acting on incomplete information. In Rusch's world, such voices are as rare as the voices in our world questioning the death sentence of a former Black Panther for supposedly killing a cop. And notice how feeble and uncertain they are. And Rusch's society is starting to unravel. You can see the signs everywhere. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:01:01 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! In-Reply-To: <199808131629.MAA15876@mime4.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, DAVID CHRISTENSON wrote: > Anyway, Levenson concludes that Heinlein was a fascist, which (if you > buy that analysis) would shed some light on Heinlein's views of women's > roles. Heinlein was a man of the 40s, not of the 90s. He was profoundly anti-fascist as defined in his day - he's a right-wing libertarian. But today we define "fascist" in a way that would horrify people of 50 years ago.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:03:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Heinlein libertarian fascist? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I found it interesting that in "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" drug dealers were being hanged, with what appeared implicit authorial approval, in stark contrast to the attitude towards drug use in "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". I assume the difference was between personal using and commercial pushing, but I'm not sure. I get confused with libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism. Anarchy would be good if they'd only get it properly organized. On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:01:01 -0700 Pat writes: >> > Heinlein was a man of the 40s, not of the 90s. He was >profoundly >anti-fascist as defined in his day - he's a right-wing libertarian. > But today we define "fascist" in a way that would horrify >people >of 50 years ago.> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:55:49 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: To the Octavia Butler list... (fwd) Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII fyi y'all ... Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:01:32 -0500 From: Crystal Kile To: OCTAVIA-L@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU Subject: To the Octavia Butler list... Susan Tucker, curator of books and records here at Newcomb College Center for Research on Women asked that I forward this to Octavia-l. I hope that some of you will be interested in participating: For an exhibit concerned with the writings of Octavia Butler, we are soliciting short responses of avid readers. As such, we are interested in documenting, as well as exhibiting, selected remarks from you. If you would like to be a part of this project and exhibit, please send us a copy or a written excerpt of your favorite Butler passage. Tell us briefly something of your response -- what you like, why you like it, where you first read it, when you return to it, and so forth. In short, what does reading Octavia Butler tell you about your life or the lives of others. The exhibit will go up next week, so time is crucial. Thanks so much, Susan Tucker Curator of Books and Records Newcomb College Center for Research on Women Tulane University New Orleans, La. 70118 susannah@mailhost.tcs..tulane.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:07:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Pat Mathews says: > Heinlein was a man of the 40s, not of the 90s. He was profoundly > anti-fascist as defined in his day - he's a right-wing libertarian. I'm in no position to argue either way, but I do recommend reading Levenson's essay, if available (the NYRSF doesn't post text on its website). Levenson considers the characterization of Heinlein as libertarian, but discards it. He seems to come to his conclusion through some serious-minded analysis, and does not toss out the "fascist" label as an unfounded insult, as some leftists do. -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:09:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Aug 98 08:01:01 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Heinlein was a man of the 40s, not of the 90s. I have sometimes thought that Heinlein was a feminist for the 40s and had simply been unable to keep up with the changes of the next forty years. I can't read Heinlein anymore because I feel like his characters are the combination of (a) my idea of a strong woman and (b) a baby-crazy nymphomaniac. It really makes me ill. But I can believe that when he started writing, his characters were groundbreaking too. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:07:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: DAVID CHRISTENSON Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > Most of the men I know who watch the show complain about Janeway's character. > They have told me the Captain is too maternal, too nice, and not devious > enough. I'm fascinated by this, but, as they are my co-workers, I don't feel I > can ask more. But I'd like to. What are they looking for in a powerful woman > character? Is she not sexual enough? Too good? Are powerful women only > acceptable/interesting if they are evil and/or manipulative? > > Victoria None of the above resonates with me at all - Janeway is not particularly "maternal" or "nice." My problem with the show, and with the Janeway character, is that far too many plots hinge upon Janeway decisions that are highly questionable given the crew's circumstances. And some decisions that are just too stupid for *any* rational leader to make, and so are obviously plot contrivances. Such as, "We're a ship of exploration, so let's stop here and explore these flesh-eating plants - oops!" I too frequently find myself yelling at the TV, "No, you dummies, just get out of there!" It's like those formula horror movies where somebody always goes up the dark stairs, alone, to check out the noises. (And Janeway must be the slowest captain in Star Fleet at the crucial task of yelling, "Shields up!" She really needs to delegate this, like Picard did. If she drove a car the way she drives the ship, she'd be rear-ending other vehicles at every stoplight. No reflexes. :-) ) Of course, if the captain and crew stuck to their main purpose - getting home as quickly as possible, instead of horsing around with potentially hostile aliens all the time - the writers would actually have to think hard to come up with plots. I suppose it's easier to make the captain make unfortunate decisions, and get herself and her crew mixed up in trouble unnecessarily, and have her key crew members question her leadership constantly to the point of insubordination to add "drama." I think the show's creators have inadvertently made her into a weak figure to get around the show's inherently flawed premise. (Too bad they didn't have a serious mutiny when they were headed in that direction, at the end of the first season - the idea of a ship traveling through space long-term with a divided crew, two factions led by two very different women, would have been interesting. Oh well.) -- David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:54:00 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Meiners Subject: Fwd: [*FSFFU*] Heinlein feminist? HA! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ---Heather Law wrote: > > I disagree that Heinlein was a feminist. I also must disagree with the idea that Heinlein was a feminist. The only work of Heinlein's I have read is "Stranger in a Strange Land." The copy I bought claimed it was an uncut version which let Heinlein's views on women come through. I thought this would be a good thing, but I was wrong. I had to stop reading in disgust after Heinlein described a woman who was disagreeing with a man as being allowed to do so in the way a favored child or kitten would be allowed to misbehave. (I apologize if this is somewhat off from what was actually said. I tried to read the book years ago and got rid of it immediately, so I can't look up passages.) Heinlein also seemed to have a bit of an obsession with open sexual arrangements that I found distasteful. It's sad that this was my first introduction to him because many people, including some on this list, consider him a great science fiction writer, but I just can't read anymore of his work. Catherine Note: This is my first posting to the list. I have been lurking for a few weeks and have really enjoyed the discussion. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:58:50 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Heinlein Content-Type: text/plain >Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:29:09 -0500 >From: DAVID CHRISTENSON >Subject: Re: Heinlein feminist? HA! > >-- [ From: David Christenson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Anybody else seen the essay on "The Ideology of Robert A. Heinlein" by >Barton Paul Levenson in the April 1998 (#116) issue of The New York >Review of Science Fiction? He covers Heinleinian feminism briefly but >rather well. He slams Podkayne as a lapse from early movement away from >sexism, but posits that "Friday" can be seen as a sort of "apology for >'Podkayne,'" containing a section about Friday's forced divorce that is >"one of the best and most moving indictments ever written of the cruelty >of discrimination for stupid reasons... (But) the key to Heinlein's >elitism lies in the term 'stupid.' Discrimination for *intelligent* >reasons is something he always favored." (For ex., advocating a math >test for voter registration in an essay, or restricting full citizenship >to veterans in "Starship Troopers.") > >Anyway, Levenson concludes that Heinlein was a fascist, which (if you >buy that analysis) would shed some light on Heinlein's views of women's >roles. >-- >David Christenson - LDQT79A@prodigy.com Actually, that article really annoyed me. I thought it was a real hatchet job, below the usual standards of the New York Review. He used a poor definition of fascism, then took quotes out of context to support his claim that Heinlein meets that definition. He also, which was particularly infuriating, persistently assumed that his character's opinions were shared by the author. I would think any critic who had taken a few lit-crit courses in college (or the equivalent reading) would know better. Levenson also ignored the individualistic, libertarian, and even anarchistic strains in Heinlein's writing. He also seemed to assume that elitism=fascism, which is just silly. French government since WWII has been run mostly by graduates of a single elite school in Paris -- but the fascist F.N. is led by Le Pen, who didn't graduate from that school. For that matter, many communist countries practiced "intelligent discrimination" -- look at all the brilliant sons (not many daughters) of peasants and villagers that rose to great heights in the old USSR. I was going to write a letter to the Review about all that, but got so mad when I tried that I decided to give it up and live longer. That said, Heinlein (like many old-school male SF writers) couldn't write female characters for beans. He tended to praise and patronize with equal measure, and when he tried to break free of his old ways of thought and stereotypes (in his later works, _Friday_ and onward) the results were mixed. But for a man of his generation and upbringing and genre, I think he did pretty well. Speaking of Grandmasters, I think Asimov actually did a fairly good job with female characters (if you count the Emotional in _The Gods Themselves_ as a female -- she belongs to a trisexual species), even though he's not thought of much in this connection. And, to complete my digressions, has everyone on the list heard that Sir Arthur Clarke has come out? He said that he hopes to touch on more gay themes in his next book... I hope he lives so long... Dan Krashin Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:24:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had heard there was some pedophilia scandal surrounding Clarke recently, but I don't know if it was ever resolved or is still under investigation. I would like to be able to continue wishing him extremely well: he's one whose science writing clarified several relativity issues for me, and I'll be very interested in the next book. The other major science clarifier in my life was Asimov, and I loved "The Gods Themselves". I never really thought about him as a feminist, but he was so eminently sane that I'm sure he must have been. I hope to meet him and Samuel Clemens in the afterlife, if any. (That should scare them both into rebirth. Don't waste bandwidth. Sorry!) >And, to complete my digressions, has everyone on the list heard that >Sir Arthur Clarke has come out? He said that he hopes to touch on >more gay themes in his next book... I hope he lives so long... > >Dan Krashin > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:29:13 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: musings on feminism over time, on TV Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit First, let me apologize in advance for continuing to take this far off the topic of written media^Åbut, I was watching Wonder Woman this afternoon (hooray for the SciFi channel!) and was struck by some of the themes we^Òve been discussion, especially the Heinlein, ST:TOS, and Madrone^Òs comments regarding feminism over time. Wonder Woman was inspirational to so many women (Gloria Steinem has an article about the effect of the comics on her as a very young girl), but now there is *so* much to be offended by in any given episode, from basic premise on. The ability to imagine what a woman from a matriarchal world would be like has greatly improved over time^ÅDiana Prince is a mousy(!) librarian woman working as a secretary for a military officer for the US *government* to help fight the Nazi^Òs; Xena stands on her own two feet and faces the enemy head on. Diana is strong and can jump high and far and make people tell the truth, but the Bionic Woman has a wider range of abilities, and once again, Xena outdoes them both, and doesn^Òt need any props to get people to talk! And Jamie, the bionic woman, and Xena don^Òt even come from a world other than our own. Its really the little tiny things that make a culture what it is, and the visible differences between role models over time really points to this sort of thing. Wonder Woman was a pretty radical feminist statement for her time, maybe Heinlein was too^Å although I^Òve only read _Stranger_, and that a million years ago^Å Another thing I noticed was the was that these 70^Òs SuperWomen were all wrapped up in the flag, fighting for God and country, where Xena could be said to be fighting *against* these things. It may make a difference that her religion and country aren^Òt good old America and Christianity, but she is openly defying the will of the gods who would rule over her^Å As for Star Trek, for me, it fails its Feminism 101 miserably in its lack of statement (feminism for me always has to be a bit activist). Janeway is a *lousy* captain, because the writers don^Òt have the first clue how to imagine A Strong Woman In Charge As The Star Of The Show. B^Òlanna is inevitably brought into a love relationship, Seven is Data with libido and a cat suit. And perhaps leaving Kes, the 3(?) year old and love object extraordinair, out of the discussion altogether is a good thing. Ultimately, the relationships on DS9 don^Òt define the characters, and the writers have a clue how to write strong women, and that is finally what makes it a better show, and also a more feminist one, IMHO. As for Next Gen, I have such a hard time getting over Troi, and the Crusher was barely more than an accessory with a title, but the story lines at least took on some hard hitting social topics. Voyager has on occasion seemed about to do so, and then turned about face and fascist, especially regarding the challenges posed by 7 facing imperialism and cultural choice^Å This is getting too long and rambling a bit too far, but I guess I have been saving it all up for this post. Rudy Leon Ph.D. candidate Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:50:43 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-08-14 17:28:47 EDT, you write: << I had heard there was some pedophilia scandal surrounding Clarke recently, but I don't know if it was ever resolved or is still under investigation. >> My ex-brother-in-law from Sri Lanka says the charges were dismissed in June for lack of evidence. This was also covered in Ansible 132, July 1998 http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a132.html Earlier issues covered this & carried a statement from Asimov. (Ansible is Dave Langford's electronic sf magazine, from London) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:00:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: Octavia Butler favorites Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thought I would forward this. Responses should be mailed to the octavia butler list at the address that follows: At 12:00 AM 8/14/98 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:00:01 -0500 >Reply-To: Literature of Octavia Butler Mailing List >Sender: Literature of Octavia Butler Mailing List >From: Automatic digest processor >Subject: OCTAVIA-L Digest - 13 Jul 1998 to 13 Aug 1998 >To: Recipients of OCTAVIA-L digests > >There is one message totalling 31 lines in this issue. > >Topics of the day: > > 1. To the Octavia Butler list... >Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:01:32 -0500 >From: Crystal Kile >Subject: To the Octavia Butler list... >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Susan Tucker, curator of books and records here at Newcomb College Center >for Research on Women asked that I forward this to Octavia-l. I hope that >some of you will be interested in participating: > > >For an exhibit concerned with the writings of Octavia Butler, we are >soliciting short responses of avid readers. As such, we are interested in >documenting, as well as exhibiting, selected remarks from you. If you >would like to be a part of this project and exhibit, please send us a copy >or a written excerpt of your favorite Butler passage. Tell us briefly >something of your response -- what you like, why you like it, where you >first read it, when you return to it, and so forth. In short, what does >reading Octavia Butler tell you about your life or the lives of others. > >The exhibit will go up next week, so time is crucial. Thanks so much, > >Susan Tucker >Curator of Books and Records >Newcomb College Center for Research on Women >Tulane University >New Orleans, La. 70118 >susannah@mailhost.tcs..tulane.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:11:16 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you! And could I possibly impose on you for the URL of Ansible? (Or can one "back up" from the archive?" I have to leave the computer for the weekend, or I'd go look for myself right now.) On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:50:43 EDT "Kathleen M. Friello" writes: >My ex-brother-in-law from Sri Lanka says the charges were dismissed in >June >for lack of evidence. This was also covered in Ansible 132, July 1998 >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a132.html >Earlier issues covered this & carried a statement from Asimov. >(Ansible is Dave Langford's electronic sf magazine, from London) > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:19:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: Ansible URL request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Took a few extra minutes on the Internet and see that one can subscribe direct from that page, so sorry to have bothered you! >http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a132.html >Earlier issues covered this & carried a statement from Asimov. >(Ansible is Dave Langford's electronic sf magazine, from London) > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:36:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Bouman Subject: Re: Clarke/Asimov [was Heinlein] In-Reply-To: <6bb67a9f.35d4b134@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From May 1998 Locus: The British tabloid accusations charging Sir Arthur C. Clarke with pedophilia (Locus #446) have been refuted to his satisfaction, after an investigation by the Sri Lanka Police. The Sri Lankan broadcaster who put some of the most serious charges on tape has now sworn, under oath, that they are completely false.... According to a CNN and Associate Press story, police interrogated three of the four men who claimed to have sex or discussed sex with Clarke. Two were paid to make statements against Clarke.... The "Sunday Mirror" of February 1 and its Online Mirror Web Page had leveled the charges against the newly knighted Clarke a few days before Britain's Prince Charles was due to visit Sri Lanka for its Independence Day Banquet and officially invest Sir Arthur with the knighthood. Clarke accused the tabloid of acting to embarrass the British government, and asked that the official ceremony be postponed (this did not affect his knighthood. ... On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Kathleen M. Friello wrote: > In a message dated 98-08-14 17:28:47 EDT, you write: > > << I had heard there was some pedophilia scandal surrounding Clarke > recently, but I don't know if it was ever resolved or is still under > investigation. >> > > My ex-brother-in-law from Sri Lanka says the charges were dismissed in June > for lack of evidence. This was also covered in Ansible 132, July 1998 > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a132.html > Earlier issues covered this & carried a statement from Asimov. > (Ansible is Dave Langford's electronic sf magazine, from London) > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:51:01 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Heinlein libertarian fascist? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit If anyone could be a libertarian fascist, Robert Heinlein was bucking for it. Unfortunately (maybe), no one can. Heinlein believed in talking a game of minimal government, but only when everyone in a given society would spout the same philosophy, oddly enough, that he himself spouted. So if everyone could just be an ex-military ex-fundamentalist Xian trying to shake off sexual taboos but profoundly unfeminist except inasmuch as the gals'll be some of the boys who have the good sense to get pregnant on command, then paradise will be here. My favorite RAH moment actually comes from his second and last produced filmscript, that for OPERATION MOONBASE (an early MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 subject), wherein a male general disagrees with a female colonel (who's named Briteis, as in "bright-eyes"), so he threatens to spank her. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 18:10:02 UT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Feminist SF/Star Trek... (fwd) >ME Hunter wrote: > Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > >Feminism is.. [snipped] > >and was, a struggle to understand the differences between behaviors that > >are coercive vs cooperative, status-oriented as opposed to nurturing and is > >a large and various set of philosophies that seek much more improvements to > >Life than simple equality. > > Fine, but can we start with equality? > and Patricia Matthews responded >This has been one of the ongoing debates about feminism once we >had taken care of some of the obvious and worst sexist practices of the >50s. > In the UK (and probably North American, Australasia, etc as well) it goes back at least to the award of the (limited) franchise in 1918 and the inaptly named Sex Disqualifications (Removal) Act (did it hell) shortly afterwards. The 1920s saw considerable debate as to whether feminism was about equality in a male world, or whether it meant valuing uniquely female life-experiences like the ability to mother, and therefore campaigning for reforms in these specifically gendered areas (maternal welfare, birth control, family allowances etc). But I daresay the roots of the debate went back a good deal further. And on the idea of equality, has anyone else read Mrs Gaskell's _Cranford_ and remember Miss Deborah Jenkins, who had no truck with this modern notion that women were equal to men - they were far superior! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 23:52:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Dorothy Allison's Cavedweller In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dorothy Allison's first novel, Bastard Out of Carolina, was not SF, but was popular with readers of feminist sf. Her second novel, Cavedweller, isn't SF either, however, interestingly enough, its protagonist is a fan of feminist science fiction. Among the writers the main character is familiar with are Le Guin (A Wizard of Earthsea), McIntyre (Dreamsnake), as well as Kate Wilhelm and James Tiptree, Jr. Thought this might interest someone on the list. Mike Michael M. Levy levym@uwstout.edu Department of English levymm@uwec.edu University of Wisconsin-Stout off. ph: 715-834-6533 Menomonie, WI 54751 hm. ph: 715-834-6533