From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Dec 29 16:03:17 1998 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:57:36 -0600 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9810D" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:28:25 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: Excuse me? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/21/98 12:11:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: << I apologize for making you spend your time deleting the off-topic messages. >> Oooooh. Isn't this great? Now we don't have to bother clicking the mouse. Wow, that's a lot of work. Might even break a fingernail doing it! I always thought science fiction was about changing attitudes, having an affect on human life, etc., etc. Especially feminist science fiction: making a safe and interesting and challenging place for women in the world. I thought it was a strong, gutsy, world-seering genre. But, hey, lets just go back to 100% fiction talk and not caring about what happens to anybody on the list. Coffee cake, anybody? Cripes. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:47:32 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: magic realism and race Content-Type: text/plain On 21 Oct 98, at 17:07, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Yes, you're right, it could be viewed in a non-racist way -- I'm being > deliberately provocative here. But that's one insidious nature of racism, > isn't it. As I've said before, I consider it my duty as a white girl to > point this stuff out when I can, and at least get people to talk about it. Is that because you think that we people of African descent are too stupid to see it for ourselves? Why do white liberals delight in rubbing our noses in every little bit of imagined racism they can dredge up? Isn't there enough real discrimination in our lives to suit them? Or do they enjoy using our humilation to show how sensitive they are? I find your attitude insulting and patronizing and I wish you'd change it. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:24:14 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: magic realism & race Jennifer writes "The interviewer also asks if Hopkinson considers the book SF or Magic Realism - she replies that she considers it "speculative fiction" -- another excellent answer (isn't all fiction speculative, by definition?) But the earlier racist question made me suspicious about the label "magic realism". To what extent are books with this label written by authors either not white or not north american? Do those authors generally see their own works as regular fiction (whatever that means these days) or something more like science or speculative fiction or fantasy? Is the term "magic realism" actually a racist code of sorts?" I think this magic realism was more common in literature from cultures other than anglo-saxon-north-american, but that doesn't mean the comment is racist. It seems acceptable to mention that other cultures have differing aspects to their literary styles without insinuating that these aspects are inferior. I first read Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude when I was in college and was fascinated at the idea that one could just drop magical ideas into a novel that I hadn't thought of as a fantasy. More recently when reading Laura Esquivel's Like Water For Chocolate I was thrilled by the same "common place" acceptance of an expanded reality. I've read that "magical realism" is a literary style originating in Latin America, but don't some of Bashevis Singer's stories have that same tendency? These stories aren't even designated "speculative" fiction, just plain fiction. It's an interesting idea, isn't it, that we might be able to access the dreamlike qualities of our lives while going about our every day existence? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:58:33 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: Off topic posts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 20-10-1998 22:37, Jenny said: >I know the campaign is important to some list subscribers, so can you >please organise it off the list? I just wanted to say this... though my record so far is not a good one (I've been trying valiantly to get back on topic, though). I am the moderator of a mailing list and I'm pretty strict about off topic - it used to be very high traffic and very unruly at times. But I've always made exceptions for matters of life and deaths: marriages, the births of babies to listmembers, graduations, earthquakes. I've never had one of my listmembers in danger of being deported back to a country where she would be risking her life and worse yet, thank god; but if I had, I would not press for offtopic discussions on how to help her to be held off-list. For what it's worth, me not being a citizen of the USA, I'd like to help any way I can. Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:55:48 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: SF and language In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT On 21 Oct 98 Jane Franklin wrote: > And in Ursula le Guin's Dispossessed, there's the invented anarchist > language, Pravic, where the expressions like "higher", "lower" to > connote importance are replaced by "more central". And then there's > no verbal distinction between work and play and no swear words > either. And I liked the idea to say 'the handkerchief I use' instead of 'my handkerchief'. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 06:21:59 -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: magic realism & race In-Reply-To: <004001bdfd8c$f9bcf140$a3422599@default> (message from Joyce Jones on Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:24:14 -0700) Megan Lindholm's _Wizard Among the Pigeons_ has often been cited as one of the first magic realism books considered to fall within the sf/fantasy genre. I have no idea of her ethnic background or skin color. E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:26:37 -0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: magic realism & race In-Reply-To: <004001bdfd8c$f9bcf140$a3422599@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII "Magic realism" as a term originated in the artworld in Paris post-World War I, and was applied to the work of painters like the Belgian Magritte (consider "Voices in Space"). ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:44:24 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janice E. Dawley wrote: << From the comments I've read on Usenet and Amazon.com the people who have read the book have either been completely sickened or interested by the psychological and sociological implications. I don't think anyone who liked the book did so because they thought the torture was cool. >> It is the kind of book that people tend to have strong feelings about. I don't recall having seen any comments along the lines of "it was okay" -- people either loved it or hated it. I loved it. It also made me feel -very- uncomfortable. Since I think that's part of what it was supposed to do, I'd call it a success. << Does it become pornography because the main character enjoys torturing people while simultaneously being presented as a fairly moral person (compared to those around him)? I found Koscuisko's quasi-sexual enjoyment of torture to be the most problematic element in the books, a sticking place that couldn't be avoided. It was interesting to me because it made me question the us/them boundary. I identified with Kosciusko to some degree simply because he was the main character and struggled to do good. But his torture trances were undeniably BAD, about as evil as can be. I struggled to imagine how I might resolve such a contradiction in my own psyche. It's a difficult question, one I think is worth asking. >> Yes, exactly! I think the most disturbing thing about the book(s) is that you can't help but identify the main character's struggle to do good. Emotionally, he -feels- like a good guy to the reader, while his actions, and his reaction to the torture, make you feel sick. Thus in some way the reader shares the contradictions of the character. Anna F. Dal Dan wrote: << AEOH is not about torture at all, it's about fantasies. And the problem is that I don't think it knows it. I read a couple of posts on Usenet about it and *really* got curious. I thought it was probably more interesting than they made it out to be, and I certainly wasn't going to be shocked by a bit of gore and blood, not after passing the Wasp Factory Test with flying colours (not to mention a couple of pages in Player of Games). But after having read it, yes, I think it is an elaborate plot built around a personal obsession with sadistic fantasies (I don't think there is anything wrong with having a sadistic imagination, as long as you are aware of the fact). And I also incidentally think that it is rather badly written, but perhaps that's just a matter of personal taste. I found all the characters absolutely unbelievable, and their relentless self-searching tiresome and curiously deadening (the more they searched their soul, the less I felt like giving a damn about it: perhaps because I didn't bought their internal thought processes, I don't know). >> I always think it's kind of funny when a reader decides what the writer's intent was. First of all, because I think it's pretty meaningless, except as a kind of fun puzzle. What the book means to the reader depends as much or more on the reader as on the writer, and the meaning is just a valid (or not) no matter what the writer's original intention. Assuming there even was one. In this case, is the sadistic fantasy supposed to be the writer's, the character's, or the reader's? Personally, I think the most evidence of sadism on the part of the writer is creating a character who -is- moral, honorable, and, well, likable, and having him have an involuntary thrill at torture. How much more horrible could you be to a person?!! The character doesn't have any sadistic fantasies, at least at the beginning when he honestly doesn't even -know- this aspect of his own character. And the reader's reaction is, of course, individual. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:07:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: OT: Help for Marina MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII According to the Associated Press, there's a call-in talk show in the New York City area for Russian immigrants. It's called Narodnaya Volna, WPAT-AM, Monday thru Friday 6am-8am. Any listies in the New Yrok area? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:23:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Quoting what follows from Janice Dawley) Re: *Shadow of the Torturer*. Just finished reading all four books of the New Sun. I didn't find that there was that much psychological insight or sociological relevance to the books. They were much too heavily weighted with Christian symbolism, which I personally found off-putting. It's implied that the only reason Severian is able to transcend his upbringing in the Torturer's Guild is that he was fated to do it. And the new sun, which will save this dying world from itself, will cause a devastating flood a la Noah, conveniently ridding the planet of all those "corrupt" folk. They were interesting books simply for the style and all the obscure references but culturally penetrating they were not. Culturally penetrating it wasn't, that's very true. And relevent in any real feminist sense, it wasn't either. And that stupid flood that kills everything...why bother to have a New Sun, if you have to kill off a whole world? (But then I did feel that that fifth book just plain was disappointing) I just find it more interesting because it's better written and more complex, imo, than An Exchange of Hostages. Although I don't mean to suggest that Exchange is a worthless or uninteresting book...I've been searching for the next one in paperback but haven't found it yet. I even went so far as to read all the reviews and links on Amazon, even though somehow I just don't like ordering stuff over the computer if I don't have to. (Quoting again) Hm... I thought pornography was supposed to be enjoyable. Who enjoyed the violence in this book? Does it become pornography because the main character enjoys torturing people while simultaneously being presented as a fairly moral person (compared to those around him)? Although I suspect that this is not the place for a discussion of what pornography is, I think that to say "pornography is supposed to be enjoyable" really oversimplifies it. Even a "classic" like the writing of DeSade--is that enjoyable in a puppies-and-chocolates kind of way? And for who is pornography intended to be enjoyable? I emphatically do not enjoy Playboy, squeaky clean and relatively wholesome as it may be. And what is meant by enjoyment, anyway? I enjoy this discussion group, but in a complex and problematic way...for instance, I'm enjoying trying to contradict what you said, even though contradiction and what I intend to be careful arguement are not perhaps the most friendly things in the world. I think Exchange is pornographic because the depictions of violence, I believe, are intended to excite the reader--among their other functions. By excite, I don't mean particularly sexual excitement, but sort of allurement. (I'm just thinking this up now, I'm not real clear on it) However, I don't use this term pornographic with the intent to dismiss...I think the thoroughness of the descriptions and their acceptance of the partial allure of violence really makes the reader think about how we envision the violent. It makes the contradictions in liking or appreciating violence apparent. So I think that's quite good, really. I suppose Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun is in that allegorical or mythic mode...much easier to conceive of stories in this mode if you're male and/or white and so able to take your assumptions about reality for the universal. That said, I adore BotNS, while recognizing its pretty sharp limitations. Like Tolkien, who is painfully racist and classist, and yet how many times have I read the journey through Moria? Ten at least, even though I must fight back irritation. The Christian symbolism doesn't bug me much, in BotNS, I suppose because the world of the book is so remote that it doesn't seem like a real future. Whereas Christ symbolism in a book that seemed to be about the next forty years would annoy me, because it would seem far more that the author meant it as a political statement. Has anyone ever read "the Death of Dr. Island", that Gene Wolfe story where the psychiatrist arranges for a gifted mentally ill boy to kill a girl, so that he will be healed and be able to help the world? Talk about an offensive story! And it's even in this recent "Best of SF from the last twenty years" type collection! Not the one Ursula le Guin edited, mercifully. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:14:55 -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: racism & commentary Claudia Lyndhurst Is that because you think that we people of African descent are too >stupid to see it for ourselves? > >Why do white liberals delight in rubbing our noses in every little bit >of imagined racism they can dredge up? Isn't there enough real >discrimination in our lives to suit them? Or do they enjoy using our >humilation to show how sensitive they are? > >I find your attitude insulting and patronizing and I wish you'd change >it. Well, no, that's not why I do it, and I bet it's not why the original author does it either. I do it -- about racism, about homophobia, about classism -- because many of my friends or housemates or coworkers who aren't straight white middle-class men have told me that they want me to do it. It's not meant to point it out to the recipient of the racism; it's meant to point it out to other white people, and to use the power (however undeserved) that comes with being white to reinforce the message that certain things are racist and are unacceptable. In the same way, if one of my male friends heard another man make a sexist comment, I'd want my friend to call attention and object to it. When I hear a subtly homophobic comment, I point it out, I object to it. I get tired of women being the only people objecting to sexism; likewise, my gay and non-white friends have said they're tired of being the only people objecting to homophobia and racism. Speaking only for the group I'm part of, women, I would say that our discrimination and oppression is only really overcome when people *outside* of the oppressed group object to it, holding their "peers" to account for their behavior. That's why I do it. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:33:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: racism & commentary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I think the confusion may have come about because the original poster wasn't pointing out the percieved racism in the interview to the person she thought might be being racist, but rather, to us, as a group. I can see where it would be inappropriate for me to tell one of my gay friends "that was really homophobic; are you going to let them get away with that?", but at the same time, I know that they would be (rightfully) upset if I let my cousin's obnoxious jokes and casual (verbal) gay-bashing go, just because there aren't any homosexuals there at the time to defend themselves. At a minimum, I feel obligated to register my disagreement. But that's directly to the perpetrator. I don't then go tell my gay friends about what he said. There is a major difference between pointing out prejudice to the perpetrator vs. pointing it out to the victims (when you're not a member of either group). There seems to have been some misunderstanding about which was being talked about. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah [mailto:jss@PA.DEC.COM] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 9:15 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] racism & commentary Claudia Lyndhurst Is that because you think that we people of African descent are too >stupid to see it for ourselves? > >Why do white liberals delight in rubbing our noses in every little bit >of imagined racism they can dredge up? Isn't there enough real >discrimination in our lives to suit them? Or do they enjoy using our >humilation to show how sensitive they are? > >I find your attitude insulting and patronizing and I wish you'd change >it. Well, no, that's not why I do it, and I bet it's not why the original author does it either. I do it -- about racism, about homophobia, about classism -- because many of my friends or housemates or coworkers who aren't straight white middle-class men have told me that they want me to do it. It's not meant to point it out to the recipient of the racism; it's meant to point it out to other white people, and to use the power (however undeserved) that comes with being white to reinforce the message that certain things are racist and are unacceptable. In the same way, if one of my male friends heard another man make a sexist comment, I'd want my friend to call attention and object to it. When I hear a subtly homophobic comment, I point it out, I object to it. I get tired of women being the only people objecting to sexism; likewise, my gay and non-white friends have said they're tired of being the only people objecting to homophobia and racism. Speaking only for the group I'm part of, women, I would say that our discrimination and oppression is only really overcome when people *outside* of the oppressed group object to it, holding their "peers" to account for their behavior. That's why I do it. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:01:40 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Mitchison: The Corn King and the Spring Queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Yesterday in a bookstore I saw a novel by Naomi Mitchison (The Corn King and the Spring Queen) that was hailed to be one of the 3 novels that founded more or less the fantasy genre (besides _The Lord of the Rings_ and another one I cannot remember at the moment). I wondered whether I should buy it but resisted as it is really thick and I wanted to find out whether it is worth it. It is not listed on the website of our listmistress' website, always my reference point for feminist sf&f, but according to the review on Amazon (see below) it is feminist. So can anybody on the list comment whether it can be seen as feminist and whether it is really worth reading (yes, I know, a matter of taste, but as it is so thick I am concerned that it might be boring, _The Lord of the Rings_ was infuriating sometimes but not boring). Petra Amazon.com review: A novel ahead of its time (1931) in many ways due to its quiet feminism and its insistence that women could have fun, and quest-plots, as well as men, this was acclaimed as one of the most important books of the year it was published. Mythical and historical at once, the story follows Erif Der in her journeys through the world of her time as she searches for atonement, reconciliation and cleansing. Lyrical descriptive writing, lucid treatments of politics and war and intensely intimate observation of the needs and deeds of human beings fill this book, which manages to be earthy and transcendent at once. *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:39:47 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: racism & commentary Content-Type: text/plain Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Well, no, that's not why I do it, and I bet it's not why the original > author does it either. I do it -- about racism, about homophobia, about > classism -- because many of my friends or housemates or coworkers who > aren't straight white middle-class men have told me that they want me to > do it. It's not meant to point it out to the recipient of the racism; it's > meant to point it out to other white people, and to use the power (however > undeserved) that comes with being white to reinforce the message that > certain things are racist and are unacceptable. Had the original author (Jennifer Krauel) been satisfied with emailing the interviewer to point out the alleged racism that would have been one thing. But she didn't. She chose to broadcast it to the world on a mailing list with people of both genders, and all races and sexual orientations. Knowing that Nalo Hopkinson has posted to this list, she in fact told the recipient. She made it look as if Nalo Hopkinson was too stupid to pick up blatant racism or too cowardly to deal with herself. She insulted not only Nalo but me and every other person of African descent on the list. Which - in my book - makes her a racist. When white people tell me how they go out of their way to challenge subtle racism, I could scream. What do they expect me to do? Clasp their knees and sob out my thanks? It's almost as bad as being told some of their best friends are "black" or they've always admired "black" people for their musical ability. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:47:16 +0100 Reply-To: simondonna@kbnet.co.uk Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: SimonDonna Subject: Re: Mitchison: The Corn King and the Spring Queen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I haven't read The Corn King and the Spring Queen, but Solution Three (1975) by Naomi Mitchison is a brilliant feminist utopian text that explores the implications of cloning in a feminist future society. I would highly recommend it. Donna ---------- > From: Petra Mayerhofer > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Mitchison: The Corn King and the Spring Queen > Date: 22 October 1998 20:01 > > Yesterday in a bookstore I saw a novel by Naomi Mitchison (The > Corn King and the Spring Queen) that was hailed to be one of the 3 > novels that founded more or less the fantasy genre (besides _The Lord > of the Rings_ and another one I cannot remember at the moment). I > wondered whether I should buy it but resisted as it is really thick > and I wanted to find out whether it is worth it. > > It is not listed on the website of our listmistress' website, always > my reference point for feminist sf&f, but according to the review on > Amazon (see below) it is feminist. So can anybody on the list comment > whether it can be seen as feminist and whether it is really worth > reading (yes, I know, a matter of taste, but as it is so thick I am > concerned that it might be boring, _The Lord of the Rings_ was > infuriating sometimes but not boring). > > Petra > > > > Amazon.com review: > A novel ahead of its time (1931) in many ways due > to its quiet feminism and its insistence that > women could have fun, and quest-plots, as well as > men, this was acclaimed as one of the most > important books of the year it was published. > Mythical and historical at once, the story > follows Erif Der in her journeys through the > world of her time as she searches for atonement, > reconciliation and cleansing. Lyrical descriptive > writing, lucid treatments of politics and war and > intensely intimate observation of the needs and > deeds of human beings fill this book, which > manages to be earthy and transcendent at once. > *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:06:24 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jane Franklin wrote: > Although I suspect that this is not the place for a discussion of what > pornography is, I think that to say "pornography is supposed to be > enjoyable" really oversimplifies it. Even a "classic" like the > writing of DeSade--is that enjoyable in a puppies-and-chocolates kind > of way? And for who is pornography intended to be enjoyable? I > emphatically do not enjoy Playboy, squeaky clean and relatively > wholesome as it may be. And what is meant by enjoyment, anyway? Apparently the word "enjoyable" is just as inexact as the word "pornographic". I meant it in a broad way, certainly not in the cutesy sense of "puppies-and-chocolates". If the torture in AEOH were in any way pleasurable to me, if I wanted to reread the passages involved, for example, or got a charge out of thinking about them, or if I thought that a significant percentage of readers did, then maybe I would think it was pornographic. > [...] I think Exchange is pornographic because the depictions of > violence, I believe, are intended to excite the reader--among their > other functions. By excite, I don't mean particularly sexual > excitement, but sort of allurement. This is the crux of the argument, I think. I did not find the depictions of torture in the book exciting or alluring. I had to fight my way through them. I have gotten the impression that many others have felt the same. So I fail to understand how anyone is deciding that Matthews intended her audience to find the torture pornographically exciting. It's interesting that Elethiomel mentioned Iain Banks in connection with this book. My reaction to his novels (of which I have read *The Wasp Factory*, *The Player of Games* and *Consider Phlebas*) is somewhat similar to my reaction to AEOH: I found them interesting and ultimately quite puzzling because I COULDN'T figure out what his intentions were in writing them. His approach to the plentiful violence hovered on the boundary between mere description and gleeful abandon. Were we supposed to be appalled at the situations being described or happily exclaiming, "Wow, that is GROSS!" in the same way we would laugh at, for example, the movie *Dead Alive*? *Wasp Factory* stepped over into absurdity -- I found myself laughing helplessly at times -- whereas *Consider Phlebas* was ultimately quite depressing and hopeless. The actual opinions or intentions of Iain Banks, the author, are a mystery to me, so I am left completely to my own interpretation. I feel the same about AEOH. My interpretation of the torture in that book leans toward "sickened and appalled", but obviously you had a different reaction. Short of a direct statement from the author, I don't think either of us is equipped to judge which reaction she intended. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Elliott Smith -- either/or "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:41:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: Mitchison: The Corn King and the Spring Queen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It's a wonderful book, but I always considered it a historical novel as opposed to a fantasy. Marsha Valance Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53233-1436 "That All May Read!" My opinions are my own--the library wouldn't want them! >>> Petra Mayerhofer 10/22 7:01 PM >>> Yesterday in a bookstore I saw a novel by Naomi Mitchison (The Corn King and the Spring Queen) that was hailed to be one of the 3 novels that founded more or less the fantasy genre (besides _The Lord of the Rings_ and another one I cannot remember at the moment). I wondered whether I should buy it but resisted as it is really thick and I wanted to find out whether it is worth it. It is not listed on the website of our listmistress' website, always my reference point for feminist sf&f, but according to the review on Amazon (see below) it is feminist. So can anybody on the list comment whether it can be seen as feminist and whether it is really worth reading (yes, I know, a matter of taste, but as it is so thick I am concerned that it might be boring, _The Lord of the Rings_ was infuriating sometimes but not boring). Petra Amazon.com review: A novel ahead of its time (1931) in many ways due to its quiet feminism and its insistence that women could have fun, and quest-plots, as well as men, this was acclaimed as one of the most important books of the year it was published. Mythical and historical at once, the story follows Erif Der in her journeys through the world of her time as she searches for atonement, reconciliation and cleansing. Lyrical descriptive writing, lucid treatments of politics and war and intensely intimate observation of the needs and deeds of human beings fill this book, which manages to be earthy and transcendent at once. *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:26:37 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: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) >I think the most disturbing thing about the book(s) is >that you can't help but identify the main character's struggle to do >good. Emotionally, he -feels- like a good guy to the reader, while his >actions, and his reaction to the torture, make you feel sick. I could certainly help identifying with him. I just cringed at the way that he was presented as a glamorous aristocratic hero - attractive, sexy, caring, compassionate, intelligent, a gifted doctor and scientist, and capable of arousing the undying devotion of 'inferiors' - who did everything well and was sans peur and sans reproche, except for his little quirk of being a sexual sadist. What made this worse was the way that his antagonist was not only female but presented as a lower-class striver lacking in any real personal competence or gifts, who had only got where she had through the dodgy actions of a powerful patron. The class politics were almost more offensive than the sexual ones Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:01:42 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: 'Free' societies was OT - homofobia >As for 'safety' in the USA - similar warnings from almost every major >city/country in the world can be made I wasn't thinking just of large cities: even smallish college towns. And London, on the whole, is a safe city to be a pedestrian in. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 19:33:55 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: Mitchison: The Corn King and the Spring Queen I wouldn't say this 'founded the fantasy genre': it's a historical novel, although one of the cultures depicted is pre-rationalist and has a functioning form of witchcraft: one of the female protagonists is a witch from this culture. I love Mitchison's work but she may not appeal to everybody. I would say the _CK and SQ_ is feminist, but bear in mind that NM was a feminist of the 1930s, so her specific slant on feminism may not be entirely in accord with the 1990s. It's also, in the Sparta sections, clearly influenced by a British left-wing intellectual's response to what was going on in the early years of Soviet Russia. Her very unusual Arthurian novel, _To the Chapel Perilous_ is apparently being reissued: I have recorded my order with amazon.com! Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:35:47 -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: racism & commentary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Oct 98 11:39:47 PDT." <19981022183947.18890.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Although I can't really speak for Jennifer, I feel pretty safe saying that she didn't mean to say that Nalo, or you, or in fact anyone on this list is cowardly or stupid. And I certainly wasn't asking for your gratitude, your appreciation, whatever; I was trying to explain my motivation, and potentially Jennifer's, for doing something that you seemed to find incredibly offensive. Which was not intended. I hate it when men don't object to sexist remarks because "it's not about me". Even when I'm there, sometimes I don't want to have to be the person who speaks up. I think *everyone* should fight sexism, and likewise I think it's the duty of every person to fight racism, classism, homophobia, and bigotry and discrimination of all kinds. That's how I try to behave. I can't find the post to this list which included the sermon about refusing to keep silent in the face of oppression, but that's the concept I'm trying for. It doesn't mean that whoever I'm speaking up for can't do it herself. It doesn't mean she owes me anything. It doesn't necessarily mean anything about her and my relationship at all. If the way in which an attempt to speak up was seen as offensive by any people on this list, I think that's really too bad. But if I had thought of it I might have done the same thing, and I would have done it because I'd like someone to do the same if I were the person being interviewed, and because my friends who are gay or working class or latino or black have said that they want me to do it. And though I would deeply regret having made anyone feel that I was calling her stupid or cowardly, I don't think it would make me a racist. jessie >Had the original author (Jennifer Krauel) been satisfied with emailing >the interviewer to point out the alleged racism that would have been one >thing. But she didn't. She chose to broadcast it to the world on a >mailing list with people of both genders, and all races and sexual >orientations. Knowing that Nalo Hopkinson has posted to this list, she >in fact told the recipient. She made it look as if Nalo Hopkinson was >too stupid to pick up blatant racism or too cowardly to deal with >herself. > >She insulted not only Nalo but me and every other person of African >descent on the list. Which - in my book - makes her a racist. > >When white people tell me how they go out of their way to challenge >subtle racism, I could scream. What do they expect me to do? Clasp their >knees and sob out my thanks? It's almost as bad as being told some of >their best friends are "black" or they've always admired "black" people >for their musical ability. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:01:34 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: BDG: Shadow Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The URL below is a page from Melissa Scott's website. She addresses Shadow Man from her view. I found it informative. http://www.rscs.net/~ms001/shadowm.html Dont recall of this was on K. Friello's list of references or not. If I am being redundant in that regard, I do apologize. By the by, I loved Shadow Man unequivocally so I am unable to comment except gushingly. Unnecessary at this late a date. Back from travels, donnaneely ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:05:17 -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: racism & commentary In-Reply-To: <19981022183947.18890.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My apologies for contributing to the bandwidth by being so provocative. I will attempt to keep this as related to our common topic as possible. Claudia's right, I probably should not have been so quick to accuse someone of asking a racist question, effectively "behind their back" in this forum that may not include them. Thanks Jessie for your response to Claudia's postings. You in fact accurately described my reasons for posting what I posted. Claudia posted this: >Had the original author (Jennifer Krauel) been satisfied with emailing >the interviewer to point out the alleged racism that would have been one >thing. But she didn't. She chose to broadcast it to the world on a >mailing list with people of both genders, and all races and sexual >orientations. Knowing that Nalo Hopkinson has posted to this list, she >in fact told the recipient. She made it look as if Nalo Hopkinson was >too stupid to pick up blatant racism or too cowardly to deal with >herself. >She insulted not only Nalo but me and every other person of African >descent on the list. Which - in my book - makes her a racist. Of course I didn't mean to do this, and meant to do the opposite, but that's probably just your point. Please accept my apologies for insulting you, Claudia. I admit to being racist; in fact, I'm suspicious of anyone who grew up in the US and claims they aren't racist, I don't think it's possible to escape that influence. I try hard every day to see how racism affects me and work against it. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Nalo was too stupid to pick up on the racist question -- in fact I tried to show that she handled it gracefully _despite_ the racism which she must have to deal with all the time. Also from Claudia: >When white people tell me how they go out of their way to challenge >subtle racism, I could scream. What do they expect me to do? Clasp their >knees and sob out my thanks? It's almost as bad as being told some of >their best friends are "black" or they've always admired "black" people >for their musical ability. I expect nothing from you, Claudia, or anyone else on the list. I just know lots of other white people who are oblivious to the ways racism affects them, and I try to point it out to them when I can. Someone's got to do that before things get better, and the last people who should have to do it are the people most affected by it. I guess I could only ask that you look the other way and use the delete key if necessary if messages like this bother you. On a public list serv like this, as you point out, not all messages must be acknowledged by each member. The main point of my original message was not to accuse anyone of racism, however. It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. Let's say an author from another culture - for example a south or central american culture, includes fantastic elements in a story but those elements are not considered unusual in that culture. It just seems to me like having to give that story a label of "magic realism" seems unnecessary. I mean, we're all reading or writing books saddled with a special genre label, so the negative implications should already be clear. If nobody else sees anything strange about it, that's fine. I'm just glad to have this forum to ask the question. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:53:02 +0100 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: magic realism and race MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Why do white liberals delight in rubbing our noses in every little bit > of imagined racism they can dredge up? Isn't there enough real > discrimination in our lives to suit them? Or do they enjoy using our > humilation to show how sensitive they are? I think your anger over this seemingly (to me) innocuous post is a bit misplaced. When comparing Jennifer's original post to yours, I would say the person who stands out as racist is you. Lumping all"white liberals", as you call them, together certainly smacks of racism to me. If you have an ax to grind, why not direct it towards something real, rather reading something into someones post that's not there? > I find your attitude insulting and patronizing and I wish you'd change > it. > > Claudia Likewise. Terri ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:46:15 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: BDG: Snow Queen, online references Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit The Snow Queen by Joan D. Vinge Some on-line references REVIEWS: Amazon (6 reader reviews): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0445205296/readqqcombooks04A/002-9141 755-1119662 description in Italian: http://atsf.fx.ro/BOOKS/1997/Regina/default.htm "Award Winner's Review" short review: http://www.jade-mtn.com/AWR/Books%20in%20HTML/snowqueen.html discussion/reviews by readers: http://www.jade-mtn.com/AWR/Discussions/snowqueendisc.html MISC: Vinge bio (fan/short): http://www.catch22.com/SF/ARB/SFV/Vinge,Joan.html http://shell12.ba.best.com/~zzmaster/SF/vinge_joan_d.html Vinge links (I couldn't access these): moonbase.wwc.edu/~thomki/writers/vinge.html Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen": NB: this is the complete text; unacknowledgedly abridged texts are also posted on the internet http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Cottage/6847/snwq1.html [FULL STORY ON 7 PAGES: "ANDERSON"] Michael Whelan's cover art: www.glassonion.com/snowqn.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:08:43 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I think the most disturbing thing about the book(s) is >that you can't help but identify the main character's struggle to do >good. Emotionally, he -feels- like a good guy to the reader, while his >actions, and his reaction to the torture, make you feel sick. > My first reaction to AEOH, was also rather sickened. I preferred the sequel, _Prisoner of Conscience_ because it had less focus on torture scenes, more characters, and more plot development. However dystopian and unpleasant, the 'world' drawn by Mathews is one in which legalised, controlled, bureaucratised, and socially sanctioned brutality took place in all levels of society. I thought that one of the underlying themes was the brutalisation of Kosciusko himself. The torturer is himself tortured. Maybe not physically, but psychologically and it is recognised by both Kosciusko and the Administration. We are told that Inquisitors often do not last out their 8(?) years of required service - or even if they do, many ex-Inquisitors became emotionally and psychologically useless. Kosciusko earns respect from his superiors because he does occasionally 'rise above' the 'burn-out' which appears to be the destiny of the majority of Inquisitors. His personal 'torture' develops in parallel to his 'training' through the ten levels of Inquisition. From the loss of his skills as a brilliant and promising surgeon, through to uncovering a sickening truth about himself and being forced to 'torture' his conscience with it, and increasingly he indulges in self-inflicted punishments...through to the end where he has to 'exchange hostages' and *sacrifice* his capacity for doing greatest good, to the service of the greatest evil. Its not a pleasant or fun read, where the heroes and heroines are truly heroic, and the villains are all wearing identifiable 'black hats' etc. What I liked about AEOH, was precisely that it explored an 'anti-hero' character. I could identify with Kosciusko's self-loathing and disgust at enjoying the torture, his inability to 'control' it and struggling with feelings that whenever he was able to "do good" it was insufficient to balance the evil he had done. I agree that AEOH does not appear feminist - but I do not think it was anti-feminist or sexist either. Women are not absent or invisible - and they become more visible in the sequel. Mergau, the major female character, may not be a pleasant character, (but none of them are) and painted with little empathy and sympathy - but she is still a powerful figure and important to the story. Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:56:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: Enough OT? In-Reply-To: <2063105@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_909136594==_" --=====================_909136594==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm new on list. I recently dropped a list because we spent so much time OT, so I was a little suprised to find myself between the Muslims and the Serbs. I'd say, though, that most anything is relevant if it inspires us as writers. This is a real life story of an area woman who opposed the Chinese at the Rape of Nanking: http://www.pjstar.com/frontpage/local/pjs2332d.html I think we need more visions of two-fisted, steely-eyed sheroes who are willing to face down the bad guys and clean up the town. I think we need more visions of peace-keeping and less visions of cleansing. And if we can draw from the tragedy in Bosnia, we should do it. But the political organizing probably belongs on another list. Rebecca (Does anyone else ever feel like heterosexual men should NOT be serving in armies?) At 07:20 AM 10/20/98 CST, you wrote: >Umm... I feel like a cad doing this, and I have to wonder if it's >somehow because I'm male. Could we please move back toward feminist >science fiction on this list? > >I do care about the topics in the off-topic posts, but this isn't the >place for them. I dearly hope that Marina isn't deported, and if we can >do something to help her, that would be great, but can any organization >be done off the list? I don't think anyone would complain about an >occasional update or explicit request for help/funds/ideas/etc. > >-allen > (really, really wishing that peace and justice were much more > prevalent, and doing what I can when I can to promote them) > >-- > Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com > Try free *nix: http://www.netbsd.org/, http://www.freebsd.org/, > http://www.linux.org/, http://www.openbsd.org/ > > --=====================_909136594==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pjs2332d.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pjs2332d.html" PEhUTUw+DQ0KDQ0KPEhFQUQ+DQ0KICA8VElUTEU+Q2hpbmEgY2FuknQgZm9yZ2V0IJFHb2RkZXNz IG9mIE1lcmN5kiA8L1RJVExFPg0NCjwvSEVBRD4NDQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIiBs aW5rPSJibHVlInZsaW5rPSJyZWQiIGFsaW5rPSIjOUY5RjlGIiB0ZXh0PWJsYWNrPg0NCjxiYXNl Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJhbmRhLCBHZW5ldmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EiIHNpemU9IjEiPg0N CjxjZW50ZXI+DQ0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI1NTAiIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIwIiBj ZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCI+DQ0KPHRyPg0NCjx0ZD4NDQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjU1MCIgYm9yZGVy PSIwIiBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0iMCIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiPg0NCjx0cj4NDQo8dGQgYmdjb2xv cj0iIzAwMDAwMCIgd2lkdGg9IjU1MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSI4MCI+DQ0KPEEgSFJFRj0iLi4vLi4vaW5k ZXguaHRtbCI+PGltZyBzcmM9Ii4uLy4uL2ltYWdlcy9uZXdmbGFnLmdpZiIgYm9yZGVyPTAgd2lk dGg9IjU1MCIgaGVpZ2h0PSI4MCIgYWx0PSJQSlN0YXIuY29tIj48L0E+DQ0KPC90ZD4NDQo8L3Ry Pg0NCjwvdGFibGU+DQ0KDQ0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI1NTAiIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5n PSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCI+PFRSPg0NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iMSIgYm9yZGVyPTAgYmdjb2xv cj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+PGltZyBzcmM9ImltYWdlcy9zcGFjZXIuZ2lmIiBib3JkZXI9MCB3aWR0aD0i MSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxIj48L3RkPg0NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iNTQ4IiBib3JkZXI9MD4NDQo8Zm9udCBm YWNlPSJhcmlhbCwgaGVsdmV0aWNhIiBzaXplPTI+DQ0KDQ0KPEI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT1oZWx2ZXRp Y2Egc2l6ZT0zPkNoaW5hIGNhbpJ0IGZvcmdldCCRR29kZGVzcyBvZiBNZXJjeZIgPC9mb250Pjwv Yj48UD48Yj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPWhlbHZldGljYSBzaXplPTI+U2Vjb3IgbmF0aXZlknMgY291cmFn ZW91cyBhY3RzIGluIE5hbmtpbmcgbWFzc2FjcmUgYXJlIGxlZ2VuZCA8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPjxQPjxm b250IGZhY2U9aGVsdmV0aWNhIHNpemU9Mj4xMC8yMi8xOTk4PC9mb250PjxQPkJ5IDxCPk1JS0Ug UkFNU0VZPC9CPiA8YnI+PGk+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT1oZWx2ZXRpY2Egc2l6ZT0yPm9mIHRoZSBKb3Vy bmFsIFN0YXI8L2ZvbnQ+PC9pPiA8UD48UD4gICA8UD4NDQo8UD4NDQogICA8UD4NDQo8UD4NDQog CTxQPg0NCjxCPlNFQ09SPC9CPiAgTWlubmllIFZhdXRyaW4gaXMgZm9yZ290dGVuIHRvZGF5IGlu IHRoZSBzbWFsbCBXb29kZm9yZCBDb3VudHkgdmlsbGFnZSBvZiBTZWNvciwgd2hlcmUgc2hlIHdh cyBib3JuIGluIDE4ODYuIDxQPg0NCiAJSXSScyBhIGRpZmZlcmVudCBzdG9yeSBoYWxmIGEgd29y bGQgYXdheSBpbiBoZXIgYmVsb3ZlZCBjaXR5IG9mIE5hbmtpbmcsIENoaW5hLiBUaGVyZSwgdGhl IG1pc3Npb25hcnkgZWR1Y2F0b3IgaXMgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBhcyB0aGUgbGVnZW5kYXJ5ICJMaXZp bmcgR29kZGVzcyBvZiBNZXJjeSIgZm9yIGhlciBjb3VyYWdlIGR1cmluZyBvbmUgb2YgdGhpcyBj ZW50dXJ5knMgZGFya2VyIG1vbWVudHMuIDxQPg0NCiAJVmF1dHJpbiB3YXMgYW1vbmcgYSBoYW5k ZnVsIG9mIGZvcmVpZ25lcnMgd2hvIGhlbHBlZCBzaGllbGQgY2l2aWxpYW5zIGZyb20gSmFwYW5l c2UgIHRyb29wcyB3aGVuIHRoZSB0aGVuLWNhcGl0YWwgZmVsbCBpbiBEZWNlbWJlciAxOTM3LiBX aXRoaW4gd2Vla3MsIGludmFkaW5nIHNvbGRpZXJzIGtpbGxlZCBhbiBlc3RpbWF0ZWQgMzAwLDAw MCByZXNpZGVudHMgYW5kIHNleHVhbGx5IGFzc2F1bHRlZCBhcyBtYW55IGFzIDgwLDAwMCB3b21l biwgYSBwcmUtV29ybGQgV2FyIElJIGF0cm9jaXR5IHRoYXQgb25seSByZWNlbnRseSBoYXMgY29t ZSB0byBsaWdodCBpbiB0aGUgV2VzdC4gPFA+DQ0KIAkiU2hlIGNvdWxkIGhhdmUgZWFzaWx5IGxl ZnQgTmFua2luZyB3aGVuIGVtYmFzc3kgcGVyc29ubmVsIGZsZWQsIGJ1dCBzaGUgc3RheWVkIGlu IHRoZSBjaXR5LiBUaGF0IHNoZSBzdGF5ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgTmFua2luZyB3b21lbiBhbmQgYWN0 ZWQgYXMgdGhlaXIgY2hhbXBpb24gd2FzIHN0dW5uaW5nLCIgc2FpZCBJcmlzIENoYW5nLCBhdXRo b3Igb2YgIlRoZSBSYXBlIG9mIE5hbmtpbmcsIiB3aGljaCBpbmNsdWRlcyBhIHByb2ZpbGUgb2Yg VmF1dHJpbi4gPFA+DQ0KIAlUaGF0IGdyb3VuZGJyZWFraW5nIDE5OTcgYmVzdCBzZWxsZXIgYW5k IG90aGVyIGJvb2tzIGFib3V0IHRoZSBOYW48aG8+a2luZyBtYXNzYWNyZSBhcmUgZ2l2aW5nIFZh dXRyaW4gYmVsYXRlZCByZWMgb2duaXRpb24gbW9yZSB0aGFuIDUwIHllYXJzIGFmdGVyIGhlciBk ZWF0aC4gPFA+DQ0KIAlUaGUgcmVhc29uOiBBcyBhY3RpbmcgaGVhZCBvZiBHaW5saW5nIFdvbWVu knMgQXJ0cyBhbmQgU2NpZW5jZSBDb2xsZWdlLCBWYXV0cmluIGNyZWF0ZWQgYSByZWZ1Z2VlIGNl bnRlciBvbiBjYW1wdXMgdGhhdCBxdWlja2x5IGJlY2FtZSBjcm93ZGVkIHdpdGggZmVhcmZ1bCBD aGluZXNlLiBUaGUgNTEteWVhci1vbGQgc2Nob2xhciB3b3JrZWQgYXJvdW5kIHRoZSBjbG9jayB0 byBwcm90ZWN0IHdvbWVuIGZyb20gbW9sZXN0YXRpb24gYW5kIG1lbiBmcm9tIHJhbmRvbSBleGVj dXRpb24sIHRob3VnaCBzaGUgd2FzbpJ0IGFsd2F5cyBzdWNjZXNzZnVsLiA8UD4NDQogCVRoZSBh bmVjZG90ZXMgaW4gaGVyIGRpYXJ5IGFuZCBleWV3aXRuZXNzIGFjY291bnRzIHBvcnRyYXkgYSB3 b21hbiBvZiBzdHJlbmd0aCBhbmQgY29tcGFzc2lvbi4gSW4gb25lIGluY2lkZW50LCB3aGVuIGFu IGVsZGVybHkgQ2hpbmVzZSB3b21hbiBtaXNzZWQgb3V0IG9uIFJlZCBDcm9zcyByYXRpb25zLCAg VmF1dHJpbiBnYXZlIGhlciB0aGUgcmljZSBwb3JyaWRnZSBzaGUgd2FzIGVhdGluZyBhbmQgdG9s ZCBoZXIsICJEb26SdCB5b3UgcGVvcGxlIHdvcnJ5LiBKYXBhbiB3aWxsIGZhaWwuIENoaW5hIHdp bGwgbm90IHBlcmlzaCwiIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBDaGFuZ5JzIGJvb2suIDxQPg0NCiAJTWVtYmVy cyBvZiBKYXBhbpJzIGFybXkgYmFyZWx5IHRvbGVyYXRlZCBmb3JlaWduZXJzIGxpa2UgVmF1dHJp biB3aG8gZWZmZWN0aXZlbHkgc2F2ZWQgYXMgbWFueSBhcyAzMDAsMDAwIG5vbmNvbWJhdGFudHMg YnkgY3JlYXRpbmcgc2FmZXR5IHpvbmVzLiBPbiBhdCBsZWFzdCBvbmUgb2NjYXNpb24sIGEgIHNv bGRpZXIgc2xhcHBlZCBWYXV0cmluIGZvciBtZWRkbGluZzsgb24gYW5vdGhlciwgYSBzb2xkaWVy IHBvaW50ZWQgYSByaWZsZSBhdCBoZXIuIDxQPg0NCiAJIkkganVzdCBkb26SdCBzZWUgaG93IHNo ZSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIGRvbmUgaXQsIiBDaGFuZyBtYXJ2ZWxzLiAiSSBvZnRlbiB3b3VsZCBsb29r IHRocm91Z2ggaGVyIGRpYXJpZXMgYW5kIHRyeSB0byBpbWFnaW5lIGhvdyBJIG1pZ2h0IGhhdmUg cmVhY3RlZCBpZiBJIHdlcmUgaW4gaGVyIHBvc2l0aW9uLiBJIGRvbpJ0IGtub3cgaWYgSSB3b3Vs ZCBoYXZlIGhhZCBoZXIgY291cmFnZS4iIDxQPg0NCiAJVGhlIGhvcnJpZmljIHNjZW5hcmlvIGlu IHdoaWNoIFZhdXRyaW4gZm91bmQgaGVyc2VsZiBjb250cmFzdGVkIHdpdGggaGVyIHRyYW5xdWls IGJlZ2lubmluZ3MgaW4gY2VudHJhbCBJbGxpbm9pcyBhcyB0aGUgZGF1Z2h0ZXIgb2YgU2Vjb3KS cyBibGFja3NtaXRoLiBBcyBhIHlvdW5nIHdvbWFuLCBzaGUgYXR0ZW5kZWQgSWwgbGlub2lzIFN0 YXRlIFVuaXZlcnNpdHksIHJlY2VpdmVkIGFuIGFjYWRlbWljIGNlcnRpZmljYXRlIGluIDE5MDcs IHRoZW4gdGF1Z2h0IG1hdGggYXQgTGVSb3ksIHJlY29yZHMgc2F5LiA8UD4NDQogCVNoZSBhY3F1 aXJlZCBhIGJhY2hlbG9yknMgZGVncmVlIGluIDE5MTIgZnJvbSB0aGUgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBvZiBJ bGxpbm9pcyBhdCBVcmJhbmEtQ2hhbXBhaWduIGJlZm9yZSBqb2luaW5nIGEgbWlzc2lvbmFyeSBv cmdhbml6YXRpb24gdGhhdCBzZW50IGhlciB0byB0ZWFjaCBpbiBDaGluYS4gVmF1dHJpbiBqb2lu ZWQgdGhlIGZhY3VsdHkgYXQgaWR5bGxpYyBHaW5saW5nIENvbGxlZ2UgaW4gMTkxOSBhbmQgYmVj YW1lIGEgZGVhbiBpbiAxOTIxLCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gSVNVIGFyY2hpIHZlcy4gPFA+DQ0KIAki VmF1dHJpbiB3YXMgY2xlYXJseSB2ZXJ5IGhhcHB5IGluIE5hbjxobz5raW5nLCIgQ2hhbmcgd3Jp dGVzLiAiT24gdmlzaXRzIHRvIGhlciBob21ldG93biBpbiBJbGxpbm9pcywgc2hlIHRhbGtlZCBp bmNlc3NhbnRseSBvZiBDaGluYSAgaXRzIGN1bHR1cmUsIGl0cyBwZW9wbGUgYW5kIGl0cyBoaXN0 b3J5LiAuLi4gSW4gaGVyIGRpYXJ5LCBzaGUgbmV2ZXIgY2Vhc2VkIHRvIG1hcnZlbCBhdCB0aGUg YmVhdXR5IG9mIHRoZSBOYW5raW5nIGxhbmRzY2FwZS4iIDxQPg0NCiAJVmF1dHJpbpJzIGNvdXJh Z2UgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBtYXNzYWNyZSB3YXNuknQgd2l0aG91dCBhIHByaWNlLiAgVGhlIGJydXRh bGl0eSBzaGUgd2l0bmVzc2VkIGZpcnN0aGFuZCBhbmQgYSBwb29yIGRpZXQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBK YXBhbmVzZSBvY2N1cGF0aW9uIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGVkIHRvIGhlciBlbW90aW9uYWwgYnJlYWtkb3du IGluIE1heSAxOTQwLCBiaW9ncmFwaGVycyBzYXkuIDxQPg0NCiAJSGVyIG1pc3Npb25hcnkgb3Jn YW5pemF0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgY29sbGVnZSBzZW50IHRoZSBzdWljaWRhbCB3b21hbiB0byB0aGUg VW5pdGVkIFN0YXRlcyBmb3IgcHN5Y2hpYXRyaWMgY2FyZS4gQW4gYXJ0aWNsZSBhcm91bmQgdGhh dCB0aW1lIHJlcG9ydGVkIFZhdXRyaW4gd2FzICJtYWtpbmcgYSBzcGxlbmRpZCByZWNvdmVyeS4i IDxQPg0NCiAJQnV0IGEgeWVhciBsYXRlciwgb24gTWF5IDE0LCBzaGUgc2VhbGVkIGhlciBJbmRp YW5hcG9saXMgYXBhcnRtZW50IGZyb20gdGhlIGluc2lkZSBhbmQgIHR1cm5lZCBvbiB0aGUgZ2Fz LiBTaGUgd2FzIDU0LiA8UD4NDQogCSJSZWFsbHkgaXQgd2FzIHN1Y2ggYSBzaGFtZS4gU3VjaCBh IHdhc3RlLCIgcmVjYWxscyBWYXV0cmluknMgbmllY2UsIEVtbWEgTHlvbiwgODcsIHdobyBoYWQg YmVlbiBkaXNjb3VyYWdlZCBieSBoZXIgYXVudCBmcm9tIHZpc2l0aW5nLiA8UD4NDQogCVRob3Vn aCBoZXIgcGFyZW50cyBhcmUgYnVyaWVkIGluIFNlY29yknMgY2VtZXRlcnkgYWxvbmcgVS5TLiBS b3V0ZSAyNCwgVmF1dHJpbiB3YXMgbGFpZCB0byByZXN0IGF0IFNoZXBoZXJkLCBNaWNoLiwgaG9t ZSBvZiBMeW9uIGFuZCBvdGhlciBzdXJ2aXZpbmcgcmVsYXRpdmVzLiA8UD4NDQogCSJJIHRoaW5r IHNoZSwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCAzMDAsMDAwIENoaW5lc2UsIHdhcyBhIHZpY3RpbSBvZiB0aGUgUmFw ZSBvZiBOYW5raW5nLCBiZWNhdXNlIHNoZSB3YXMgYSB2aWN0aW0gb2YgYWZ0ZXJzaG9jaywiIHNh aWQgU2hpIFlvdW5nLCBjby0gYXV0aG9yIG9mIDE5OTeScyAiVGhlIFJhcGUgb2YgTmFua2luZzog QW4gVW5kZW5pYWJsZSBIaXN0b3J5IGluIFBob3RvZ3JhcGhzLiIgPFA+DQ0KIAlWYXV0cmluknMg c3RvcnkgZG9lc26SdCBlbmQgaW4gb2JzY3VyaXR5LCBhdCBsZWFzdC4gPFA+DQ0KIAlCZXNpZGVz IHdpZGVseSByZWFkIGJvb2tzIGJ5IENoYW5nIGFuZCBZb3VuZyB0aGF0IGhvbm9yIHRoZSB2YWxp YW50IGVkdWNhdG9yLCBhbiBFbmdsaXNoIHRyYW5zbGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBhd2FyZC13aW5uaW5n IFZhdXRyaW4gYmlvLCAiR2lubGluZyBGb3JldmVyLCIgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgbmV4dCB5ZWFyIGJ5 IENhcmJvbmRhbGUgYXV0aG9yIEh1YS1MaW5nIFcuIEh1LiA8UD4NDQogCVdyaXR0ZW4gd29ya3Mg YXJlbpJ0IHRoZSBvbmx5IHRyaWJ1dGVzLiBDdXJhdG9ycyBvZiBOYW5raW5nknMgd2FyIG11c2V1 bSBwbGFuIHRvIHJlY3JlYXRlIFZhdXRyaW6ScyBncmF2ZXN0b25lIGFzIGEgcHVibGljIG1lbW9y aWFsLCBZb3VuZyBzYXlzLiA8UD4NDQogCUFsbCBvZiB0aGUgYXR0ZW50aW9uIHNlZW1zIGFwcHJv cHJpYXRlLCBpZiBhIGJpdCBsYXRlLCB0byBMeW9uLCB3aG8gaGFzIGZpZWxkZWQgbnVtZXJvdXMg aW5xdWlyaWVzIGFib3V0IGhlciBhdW50IGluIHJlY2VudCB5ZWFycy4gTGFzdCBtb250aCwgYW4g YWRtaXJpbmcgcmVzZWFyY2hlciBvcmRlcmVkIDEwMCByb3NlcyBmb3IgVmF1dHJpbpJzIGdyYXZl IG9uIGhlciBiaXJ0aGRheSwgU2VwdC4gMjcuIDxQPg0NCiAJRXhwbGFpbmVkIEx5b246ICJTaGUg c2FpZCBpZiBzaGUgaGFkIGFub3RoZXIgbGlmZSB0byBnaXZlLCBzaGWSZCBnaXZlIGl0IHRvIENo aW5hLiIgPFA+DQ0KIAkgIDxQPjwvZm9udD48L3RkPjx0ZCB3aWR0aD0iMSIgYm9yZGVyPTAgYmdj b2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+PGltZyBzcmM9ImltYWdlcy9zcGFjZXIuZ2lmIiBib3JkZXI9MCB3aWR0 aD0iMSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxIj48L3RkPjwvdHI+DQ0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXI+DQ0KPHRkIHdp ZHRoPSI1NTAiIGJvcmRlcj0wIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwMDAiIGhlaWdodD0iMiIgY29sc3Bhbj0z Pg0NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiIGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEdlbmV2YSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGlj YSI+DQ0KPGNlbnRlcj4NDQo8Yj48QSBIUkVGPSIuLi8uLi9zZXJ2aWNlcy9qb3VybmFsc3Rhci9j b3B5cmlnaHQuaHRtbCIgc3R5bGU9InRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjpub25lOyBjb2xvcjpyZWQiPkNv cHlyaWdodCAmIzE2OTsgUGVvcmlhIEpvdXJuYWwgU3RhcjwvYT48L2I+PC9mb250Pg0NCjwvY2Vu dGVyPg0NCjwvdGQ+DQ0KPC90cj4NDQo8L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+DQ0KPC90cj4NDQo8L3RhYmxlPg0N CjwvY2VudGVyPg0NCjwvYm9keT4NDQoNDQoNDQoNDQo8L0hUTUw+ --=====================_909136594==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_909136594==_-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:22:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: The Mismeasure of Man In-Reply-To: <2064866@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julieanne, Here's a cold-blooded, self-serving consideration: genetic diversity. We already have heritage seed savers and zoos that serve as "arks" for endangered animal species. So if your ancestors left you with unusual resistance to the plague or a resistance to some kinds of cancer or you are part of a small genetic pool that might disappear before we figure out how to exploit you, well, we'll let you come in. But we might make restrictions on how you can breed, and we might ask you to contribute genetic material to our biobanks, and we might use you as guinea pigs in medical experiments, but if you don't like it, go home! Rebecca > >In the book I'm working on, its sort of assumed that such decisions have to >be made in an over-populated and environmentally decimated world. The lucky >powerful and richer nation-states, organisations, enclaves and individuals >have to decide who they will help and who they leave to perish, and what >criteria they would use to determine those categories. One of these >However, I am really stuck on some ideas in this area .. so I would like to >ask the list for help in gaining some new thoughts on this fiction scenario: > >If you were a member of a privileged, comfortable group - with a million >refugees knocking on your door ...but, you are only able to help, say for >arguments sake, 10% of them.... > >- which would you choose and/or on what grounds would you choose them? Or >what conditions would you place on their acceptance? Also, how would you >deal with the rejected ones? > >(btw: bizarre, absurd, fantastic, unrealistic, or witty, humorous ones are >welcome too:) > >Also any books or stories which cast angles on this sort of scenario would >be appreciated:) > > >Thanks > >Julieanne >jalc@ozemail.com.au > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:15:15 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: racism & commentary Content-Type: text/plain On 10/22 Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I expect nothing from you, Claudia, or anyone else on the list. I just > know lots of other white people who are oblivious to the ways racism > affects them, and I try to point it out to them when I can. Someone's got > to do that before things get better, and the last people who should have > to do it are the people most affected by it. I guess I could only ask > that you look the other way and use the delete key if necessary if > messages like this bother you. On a public list serv like this, as you > point out, not all messages must be acknowledged by each member. You and Jessie really don't get it, do you? Would you expect me to ignore a bunch of skinheads shouting "N*" just because they were shouting it at some other "black" person and not at me? Can't you see that I think of your postings as the intellectual equivalent of the skinhead's "N*"? My notes to you both are part of _my_ fight against racism - a particularly insidious form of racism which contaminates our lives as much, if not more, than the crude hatred of the KKK. It's a form of racism that people like you use to make us feel unwelcome in the work place and inferior in social situations. It's a form of racism that's almost impossible to fight so it frustrates and angers "blacks". Why don't you stop spouting off about racism to black people - here and in your work/personal life - for, say, a month? If you hear racist comments by other whites, speak to the perpetrators in private if you can or ignore the remarks if you can't. And don't feel the need to tell your "black friends" how much effort you've made on their behalf. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the effect on the "black" people you work or socialize with - even if it's only because you've spared them the embarrassment of having to listen to you for a month. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:08:31 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: BDG: Snow Queen, online references Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 23-10-1998 2:46, Kathleen M. Friello said: > >description in Italian: >http://atsf.fx.ro/BOOKS/1997/Regina/default.htm It's rumenian, not Italian. Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:03:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit My belief that there's a pornographic element to AEOH comes from having had several friends who read and and who are into SM remark on this aspect of the book, also on the book's similarity to some SM lesbian pornography. (To clarify for my own sense of self-respect--the reason I have a working familiarity with SM pornography stems not from personal interest but from a seminar on queer theory that I took in which not only did we read a lot of theory about depictions of sex but in which I co-wrote a paper on power and SM. I did a lot of my senior college work on the concept of social/political power (sort of Foucault type stuff) and there was some overlap. Again, for my own self respect, I did not linger over AEOH, but I think it shares some qualities with things people are meant to linger over. What I admire about AEOH is that it shows the logical outcome of extreme violence and, I think, lays bare some of the fears and needs that underly SM. SM images are so trendy right now that I think an examination of them is useful...and (as someone pointed out) I think this book is far more about power and violence than it is about a specific social constuct. Also, you can be fascinated and allured by something while it horrifies and frightens you--most of my friends I've talked to about this see SM not as a way to have fun and simple pleasure but as way to resolve complicated feelings about pain and control , and to resolve them in a way that is both enjoyable and distressing at the same time. It is not, in short, a matter of simply enjoying distressing materials, but of enjoyment and distress being connected and both present. Admittedly, this is all hearsay, and my friends could have been feeding me a line. Although it is possible to read AEOH in several ways, and (having read the reviews at Amazon) it certainly seems that a lot of people read it as social criticism. So I'm not trying to argue anything as silly as "anyone who read it secretly read it because they enjoy violence" or something. >>> "Janice E. Dawley" 10/22 2:06 PM >>> Jane Franklin wrote: > Although I suspect that this is not the place for a discussion of what > pornography is, I think that to say "pornography is supposed to be > enjoyable" really oversimplifies it. Even a "classic" like the > writing of DeSade--is that enjoyable in a puppies-and-chocolates kind > of way? And for who is pornography intended to be enjoyable? I > emphatically do not enjoy Playboy, squeaky clean and relatively > wholesome as it may be. And what is meant by enjoyment, anyway? Apparently the word "enjoyable" is just as inexact as the word "pornographic". I meant it in a broad way, certainly not in the cutesy sense of "puppies-and-chocolates". If the torture in AEOH were in any way pleasurable to me, if I wanted to reread the passages involved, for example, or got a charge out of thinking about them, or if I thought that a significant percentage of readers did, then maybe I would think it was pornographic. > [...] I think Exchange is pornographic because the depictions of > violence, I believe, are intended to excite the reader--among their > other functions. By excite, I don't mean particularly sexual > excitement, but sort of allurement. This is the crux of the argument, I think. I did not find the depictions of torture in the book exciting or alluring. I had to fight my way through them. I have gotten the impression that many others have felt the same. So I fail to understand how anyone is deciding that Matthews intended her audience to find the torture pornographically exciting. It's interesting that Elethiomel mentioned Iain Banks in connection with this book. My reaction to his novels (of which I have read *The Wasp Factory*, *The Player of Games* and *Consider Phlebas*) is somewhat similar to my reaction to AEOH: I found them interesting and ultimately quite puzzling because I COULDN'T figure out what his intentions were in writing them. His approach to the plentiful violence hovered on the boundary between mere description and gleeful abandon. Were we supposed to be appalled at the situations being described or happily exclaiming, "Wow, that is GROSS!" in the same way we would laugh at, for example, the movie *Dead Alive*? *Wasp Factory* stepped over into absurdity -- I found myself laughing helplessly at times -- whereas *Consider Phlebas* was ultimately quite depressing and hopeless. The actual opinions or intentions of Iain Banks, the author, are a mystery to me, so I am left completely to my own interpretation. I feel the same about AEOH. My interpretation of the torture in that book leans toward "sickened and appalled", but obviously you had a different reaction. Short of a direct statement from the author, I don't think either of us is equipped to judge which reaction she intended. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Elliott Smith -- either/or "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 06:20:46 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: racism and commentary MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm new to the list and it seems that every time I have something I want to respond to, I'm having to put it off until later because of other pressing matters. Thus, I have been silent through much of the interesting debate. However, I've enjoyed lurking (printing out everything and reading it during my breaks at the office), and I've learned a lot! I really value the group. I'm sorry that Marina's posts have been conspicuously absent the past few days because they were enlightening. I'm sorry there doesn't seem enough time here to discuss everything that should or could be discussed. However, I have to respond to both Marina's and Claudia's issues. Perhaps respond would be the wrong word. Inquire is probably more appropriate. Marina seemed hurt that anyone would question the quantity of postings about her, personal, situation. I know that when people were initially concerned about something she had mentioned in passing (her probable deportation), Marina seemed uncomfortable and didn't want to make a big thing about it. She seemed somewhat apologetic throughout. However, her final (to my knowledge) comment here to date was something along the lines of, 'I didn't realize sorting through those posts was such an effort'. These were not the only words in that posting which seemed, for lack of a better word, peevish. I am interested in almost everything that crosses this forum. However, I can completely understand why some people would find it prohibitive to filter through off topic posts, considering the sheer volume of postings to this group. I can also understand individuals not being interested in a given topic, and when that topic is not only off-topic, but is also taking up approx 50% of the posting volume, I find their objection to that to be reasonable. Unfortunately, their objection by necessity will hurt someone's feelings. As for Claudia's response to Jennifer's racist remarks, I feel that, beyond the initial response and Jennifer's reply, it is unwarranted. Now, this doesn't mean I'm right in thinking that. I'm a white girl, too. I don't have to deal with racist crap all the time. However, I am a lesbian. And there are certain times when, in the workplace or among people who will never even attempt to understand views or experiences or just the beingness of anything outside their cozy little world, when the layers of ignorant commentary and behavior from those people can build until I no longer have tolerance for the least bit of it, I can expect superhumanness from those people. I can expect them to, basically, stop being. I just don't want to deal with their excuses or their shite. And I admit that I am more offended by the homophobic content, and especially the anti-lebian content, than I am by the other stupid comments, be they racist, agist, sexist, what-have-you. It's natural to take commentary that hits closer to home more to heart than other commentary. Let's not kid ourselves and say that we are equally offended by all ignorant people. It just isn't so. We each have our issues. We live in a our own skin, and we know how stupid individuals can totally discredite or misinterpret or step all over our individual lives. Usually, those people have power and because of it, are even more arrogant and clueless. However, the people who are trying and who are listening and who are humble in the face of their mistakes--those people should get some slack. Jennifer apologized and explained what she intended. I think it's time to leave it be. I am not going to understand completely what Claudia's experience is. Conversely, she is not going to understand completely what I or Jennifer or anyone else's is. Unfortunately, the human condition is that we are all alone. How do others feel about this? I think the response to bigotry can be as telling as the commission. Thanks for the opportunity this forum affords. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:57:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: racism & commentary Pardon me for jumping in, but what is quoted after my post just seems really cruel to me. I think there's a real difference between being well-meaning but dumb and having ill intent. One of my close friends makes the dumbest remarks on the planet about bisexual people and queer people in general-- he doesn't know too many and he has silly ideas about all lesbians liking soccer and so on. But he has repeatedly done pro-gay political stuff and told the homophobes he works with to knock it off. He's also a solid friend to this really unhappy deeply closeted gay man. As a lesbian, I find some of his comments foolish, and I correct them. But I don't think it makes him homophobic like Jesse Helms is homophobic. You know what, I'd rather spend my entire life correcting people like him, people with silly ideas and good intentions, than have one more Matthew Shephard beaten to death. The last part of what follows, I think, is unneccesarily cruel. Especially since this criticism is not being given in private email but on a public forum. I think it's rather rude to make massive judgements about the friends of someone one has never even met. And just from a tactics point of view, all that biting someone's head off will do is make them even more eager to "get the right answer" about racism or sexism or whatever...which is to me a lot of the problem with the whole white liberal thing. And I would like to add that I find the logic really funny--a white person should not speak up about racism she witnesses because it might appear patronizing because it might suggest that people of color had not noticed the insult. On that same logic, when I see the cops beat up the Somali immigrants in my neighborhood, I should refrain from writing to the paper or calling in the media, since Somalis might be watching or reading and they would be offended that I had assumed they hadn't noticed they were being beaten. How racist of me to call the cops racist! In fact, why take any political action at all? Oppose US intervention in Nicaragua? How patronizing...the Nicaraguans, after all, know about the Contras. I know it must be really annoying to have white people trying to have the "correct" view on race or thinking that we can fight other people's battles, like all those movies "about" racism that coincidentally star a white protagonist. And I bet it must be tiring to have white people assume that the best topic for their friends of color is "how sensitive I, a white person, am for noticing your oppression, and how deeply I can understand it." It's a typical, I think, academic response. I personally accept this criticism, it certainly fits with behavior I have seen and occasionally practiced. I still don't think that was the intention of the post that started this all off, however. But please, please, everyone, let's try to be a little kinder in our public criticism. Since the list seems to have survived an extensive go round about Bosnia, let's not smash it all up by saying really nasty things to each other. >>> Claudia Lyndhurst 10/23 2:15 AM >>> On 10/22 Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I expect nothing from you, Claudia, or anyone else on the list. I just > know lots of other white people who are oblivious to the ways racism > affects them, and I try to point it out to them when I can. Someone's got > to do that before things get better, and the last people who should have > to do it are the people most affected by it. I guess I could only ask > that you look the other way and use the delete key if necessary if > messages like this bother you. On a public list serv like this, as you > point out, not all messages must be acknowledged by each member. You and Jessie really don't get it, do you? Would you expect me to ignore a bunch of skinheads shouting "N*" just because they were shouting it at some other "black" person and not at me? Can't you see that I think of your postings as the intellectual equivalent of the skinhead's "N*"? My notes to you both are part of _my_ fight against racism - a particularly insidious form of racism which contaminates our lives as much, if not more, than the crude hatred of the KKK. It's a form of racism that people like you use to make us feel unwelcome in the work place and inferior in social situations. It's a form of racism that's almost impossible to fight so it frustrates and angers "blacks". Why don't you stop spouting off about racism to black people - here and in your work/personal life - for, say, a month? If you hear racist comments by other whites, speak to the perpetrators in private if you can or ignore the remarks if you can't. And don't feel the need to tell your "black friends" how much effort you've made on their behalf. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the effect on the "black" people you work or socialize with - even if it's only because you've spared them the embarrassment of having to listen to you for a month. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:38:01 -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: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: <95ee5682.362ec279@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > Oooooh. Isn't this great? Now we don't have to bother clicking the mouse. > Wow, that's a lot of work. Might even break a fingernail doing it! A lot of people have to -pay- to download their mail. Why should they pay for posts that they are just going to delete? Other people don't have room in their inboxes to deal with large amounts of mail. So they get on lists that are aimed at a specific topic. Finally, there are people who are here to discuss Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopian fiction. We go elsewhere to discuss politics and other subjects that are not on topic to this list. > I always thought science fiction was about changing attitudes, having an > affect on human life, etc., etc. Especially feminist science fiction: making > a safe and interesting and challenging place for women in the world. I > thought it was a strong, gutsy, world-seering genre. Yes it is all that. That is why I am here instead of hanging out in alt.feminism or alt.politics. There are -plenty- of forums for discussing feminism, politics, Bosnia etc. AFAIK this is the -only- forum specifically for discussing Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopian fiction. Perhaps you can suggest a "strong, gutsy world-seering" book for discussion. I think the last book I read of that sort was *Woman on the Edge of Time*. > But, hey, lets just go back to 100% fiction talk and not caring about what > happens to anybody on the list. Coffee cake, anybody? Is this about Marina? There have been several people who have shown their support of Marina and have given her very good and useful advice. I don't think there is a problem with taking this off list. An e-mail loop will probably be more useful and provide a deeper focus on Marina's specific problem than this forum can provide. > Cripes. > > Madrone > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:39:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Galdamez Subject: Re: dropping out Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Can someone pls. tell me how one drops out of listserv? Thanks. MG ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:30:09 +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: Enough OT? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, when I look down the list of what I've read and what I've skipped I'm surprised to see that it's the off topic stuff that has gripped my attention. Perhaps I should be on a different list. Perhaps someone should set one up to discuss off topic stuff with the proviso that members should have a fondness for feminist SF? I really think that life would be poorer for not reading such as the stuff about Matthew Shepard and I think if you have lurked on the list for as long as I have you would think Marina being removed would leave the list not only poorer but much less interesting. Back to ignoring SF posts because I still haven't got round to reading the books. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:46:13 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: FEMINISTSF Digest - 21 Oct 1998 to 22 Oct 1998 Content-Type: text/plain >From: Jane Franklin >Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) > >(Quoting what follows from Janice Dawley) >Re: *Shadow of the Torturer*. Just finished reading all four books of >the New Sun. I didn't find that there was that much psychological >insight or sociological relevance to the books. They were much too >heavily weighted with Christian symbolism, which I personally found >off-putting. It's implied that the only reason Severian is able to >transcend his upbringing in the Torturer's Guild is that he was fated to >do it. And the new sun, which will save this dying world from itself, >will cause a devastating flood a la Noah, conveniently ridding the >planet of all those "corrupt" folk. They were interesting books simply >for the style and all the obscure references but culturally penetrating >they were not. I could enjoy them without digging too deeply into the Christian stuff; it works pretty well as a "science fantasy" story. The corrupt people you mention IIRC were completely dominated by weird aliens. >Culturally penetrating it wasn't, that's very true. And relevent in any real feminist sense, it wasn't either. And that stupid flood that kills everything...why bother to have a New Sun, if you have to kill off a whole world? (But then I did feel that that fifth book just plain was disappointing) I just find it more interesting because it's better written and more complex, imo, than An Exchange of Hostages. Although I don't mean to suggest that Exchange is a worthless or uninteresting book...I've been searching for the next one in paperback but haven't found it yet. I even went so far as to read all the reviews and links on Amazon, even though somehow I just don't like ordering stuff over the computer if I don't have to. [snip] >I suppose Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun is in that allegorical or mythic mode...much easier to conceive of stories in this mode if you're male and/or white and so able to take your assumptions about reality for the universal. That said, I adore BotNS, while recognizing its pretty sharp limitations. Like Tolkien, who is painfully racist and classist, and yet how many times have I read the journey through Moria? Ten at least, even though I must fight back irritation. The Christian symbolism doesn't bug me much, in BotNS, I suppose because the world of the book is so remote that it doesn't seem like a real future. Whereas Christ symbolism in a book that seemed to be about the next forty years would annoy me, because it would seem far more that the author meant it as a political statement. Has anyone ever read "the Death of Dr. Island", that Gene Wolfe story where the psychiatrist arranges for a gifted mentally ill boy to kill a girl, so that he will be healed and be able ! >to help the world? Talk about an offensive story! And it's even in this recent "Best of SF from the last twenty years" type collection! Not the one Ursula le Guin edited, mercifully. Perhaps you should reread the story. It did not seem so crystal-clear to me that the author sees the murder as a justified act. After all, the viewpoint character is IIRC a child who is used as a pawn by the eponymous "Dr. Island" to set up the psychodrama. > About _Exchange of Hostages_: I couldn't get all the way through it because I felt so manipulated. It was obvious to me that the writer was trying to build the aristocratic doctor protagonist up, and make him seem more sympathetic by making everyone else despicable. I agree with what Lesley said about the female, lower-class, incompetent antagonist, who is basically a poor woman trying to make it as a torturer because it is one of the only fields where she can rise on her own merits. IMHO her story would have been a lot more interesting to read, rather than the story of a neurotic, spoiled rich boy with a taste for pain who commits atrocities. OTOH, I thought the writing, though clumsy, showed some real talent and I'll be looking for other books from that author on other subjects. Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:07:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: OT: Removing OT material from the list, also SF anthology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ( I have a specifically feminst sf question pertaining to Ursula le Guin and Jane Candace Dorsey at the end of this post...) I quite agree that we need to do this, and I didn't know that people had to pay for each item of mail they got. If I had known, I would have been far more concise. I'm really sorry. Please don't anybody give up on the list because of my verbosity-- I promise I'll be much more sf focused, and more book discussion focused. For people who are concerned about Marina, please email me at jfrankln@famprac.umn.edu - -Marina asked me if I could coordinate some of this. That way, it'll be the last time this stuff has to appear on the list, unless there's some MAJOR shocking development. I like this list very much. I'm willing to make a real effort to make it more congenial to everyone, and maybe those of us who also like to talk politics could pick another feminst forum and sign on there, so that we could still chat back and forth about such things with each other without unfocussing the list. I'd also welcome personal email if people want. On that note, has anyone read that Norton Anthology of SF, the big one that Ursula Le Guin edited? What did you think of her choices in feminist terms? What was your favorite? And what did you think of (Learning About) Machine Sex, by Jane Candace Dorsey, the author of Black Wine? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:20:15 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Enough OT? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:30 PM 10/23/98 +0100, you wrote: >I really think that life would be poorer for not reading such as the stuff >about Matthew Shepard. . . . >Yvonne > > Yvonne brings up a good point, and I will beg your pardon for continuing this possibly OT conversation because I think we should pause to consider this. I have a feeling that those of us who are staying on this listserv would agree with Yvonne. As someone (Madrone?) said, SF/Feminism/(and to an extent) Utopian studies include and inform everything. . .most important to this conversation would be the idea that "current events involving gender issues" certainly falls under "everything." I think we're all feeling the pinch of Madrone and Marina's last two posts, and the easiest response to such--what to say--spiteful remarks would be to say, "Fine, to hell with 'em, we really will make sure we stay totally on-subject from now on so that this kind of thing never happens again." Instead, I believe we should indulge somewhat OT postings, but try much more to relate them to the topic. For example, how does feminist theory play into the Bosnia situation? What is it about (some? all? male-dominated?) countries that infests their ideology and allows these things to happen? I think that's the key difference between a listserv that discusses current events and one that discusses FSFFU stuff. That was my deep and thoughtful part of the post. My straining at the leash, I've been about to explode because I couldn't say anything earlier post is: Incidentally, I'm a little disturbed by the idea that it is denigrating to a conversation to say that the conversation is fit to be held over coffee cake. Are the only real conversations those in which the spit flies? There seems to be a gender issue at stake here, too. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:29:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Candas Jane Dorsey (was: OT: Removing OT material from the list...) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > And what did you think of (Learning About) Machine Sex, by Jane > Candace Dorsey, the author of Black Wine? As beautifully written as *Black Wine* is, I was very frustrated by the characters. I didn't like the tacked on ending, either. I am hesitant to read her next book. I would definately have to hear a lot of strong endorsements of this book before I pick it up. Have you read it yet and is it better than *Black Wine*? Does it have more to offer than lyrical prose? Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:29:45 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: The Death of Dr. Island (quoting from D. Krashin) Perhaps you should reread the story. It did not seem so crystal-clear to me that the author sees the murder as a justified act. After all, the viewpoint character is IIRC a child who is used as a pawn by the eponymous "Dr. Island" to set up the psychodrama. > What concerns me about this story is not Wolfe's depiction of Dr. Island--I think Wolfe intends him to be scary and manipulative. I am just concerned by the end, where the child is "healed" by having the troubled consciousl half of his character shut off, which seems to me to be very much like killing him. The fact that this type of resolution ends the story suggests to me that the death of the girl is meant to be seen as ok, like the death of half of the boy's personality. To me, this fits in with the destruction of the world to bring the New Sun. It's not so much that I feel Wolfe is saying that the girl is worthless because she's a girl. But I do feel that he's saying it's ok to sacrifice her. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:00:35 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kathy Andeway Subject: Re: Excuse me? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stacey - Well put. I may not UNsubscribe after all !! Kathy Stacey Holbrook wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Demetria M. Shew wrote: > > > Oooooh. Isn't this great? Now we don't have to bother clicking the mouse. > > Wow, that's a lot of work. Might even break a fingernail doing it! > > A lot of people have to -pay- to download their mail. Why should they pay > for posts that they are just going to delete? Other people don't have room > in their inboxes to deal with large amounts of mail. So they get on lists > that are aimed at a specific topic. Finally, there are people who are here > to discuss Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopian fiction. We go > elsewhere to discuss politics and other subjects that are not on topic to > this list. > > > I always thought science fiction was about changing attitudes, having an > > affect on human life, etc., etc. Especially feminist science fiction: > > making a safe and interesting and challenging place for women in the > > world. I thought it was a strong, gutsy, world-seering genre. > > Yes it is all that. That is why I am here instead of hanging out in > alt.feminism or alt.politics. There are -plenty- of forums for discussing > feminism, politics, Bosnia etc. AFAIK this is the -only- forum > specifically for discussing Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy and Utopian > fiction. Perhaps you can suggest a "strong, gutsy world-seering" book for > discussion. I think the last book I read of that sort was *Woman on the > Edge of Time*. > > > But, hey, lets just go back to 100% fiction talk and not caring about what > > happens to anybody on the list. Coffee cake, anybody? > > Is this about Marina? There have been several people who have shown their > support of Marina and have given her very good and useful advice. I don't > think there is a problem with taking this off list. An e-mail loop will > probably be more useful and provide a deeper focus on Marina's specific > problem than this forum can provide. > > > Cripes. > > > > Madrone > > > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:46:55 -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: changing my life In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Oct 98 00:15:15 PDT." <19981023071516.7940.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain >Why don't you stop spouting off about racism to black people - here and >in your work/personal life - for, say, a month? If you hear racist >comments by other whites, speak to the perpetrators in private if you >can or ignore the remarks if you can't. And don't feel the need to tell >your "black friends" how much effort you've made on their behalf. Oh, good grief. I guess by definition I'm not qualified to respond to this post, and it's obvious that there's not a lot of point in discussing this anymore. (Reminds me a little of a professor I had at MIT, a white gay male tenured professor, who found out that I was straight halfway through the class and told me I couldn't say anything about the nature of oppression because of it. Whatever.) Still I feel compelled to say that your implication that all of my friends who aren't just like me are somehow faking it, putting up with me, and in general desperately wishing they could get away from me is unwarranted, wholly without rationale, deeply offensive, and pretty disgusting, both to me and to them. I can't imagine that anyone else wants to hear more of this and it's obvious that you don't actually have an interest in either hearing that I mean no offense or explaining what you do want, besides -- apparently -- to never have any white person speak about anything but other white people. Since I am destined by my genes and attempts at goodwill to be nothing but offensive, I'll spare the other members of this list any more discussion after this piece of mail. Fortunately, now that I'm not patronizing "blacks," leading the charge of the intellectual skinheads, calling my "black friends" (who actually despise me) just to gloat at how much I do for them, finding people who describe themselves as "black" just so I can use the word to offend you, and otherwise using my subtle racism to making you feel unwelcome and inferior -- why, I'll have tons of free time! I'll call my sister and tell her I can't talk to her about her life anymore because she's a lesbian and I'm not. Have lunch with my college roommates -- black (her word, probably because I made her feel so ashamed of herself), Mexican, Chinese, gay, lesbian, bisexual, plus one white straight girl from Montana, so you see I probably offended the whole world by proxy -- and apologize for presuming to sympathize when they came home and raged to me about their day. I'll warn my boss not to talk about his wife or kids because he's white and they're not. Boy, it's too bad I missed Yom Kippur! Then I could also offend those of my relatives and friends who are more religious than I am, and think that therefore I shouldn't participate in or talk about any religious activities. When I'm done with that, I'll refrain from ever again objecting to oppression against a group of which I'm not a member, because it might make someone in that group angry. When asked, "Why didn't you speak up?" I'll say, "I'm a white straight middle-class over-educated American, and I really can't speak for anyone else. I don't really understand their situation, and I know they can speak for themselves." I'll probably take up cross-stitch, or maybe finish the novel I'm working on, making sure only to write white straight middle-class overeducated characters. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:14:55 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: The Death of Dr. Island Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 23-10-1998 17:29, Jane Franklin said: >It's not so much that I feel Wolfe is saying >that the girl is worthless because she's a girl. But I do feel that >he's saying it's ok to sacrifice her. I don't think that Wolfe is that simple. He is, actually, a terminally complex man, and I think that you, as a reader, are always expected to doubt everything the narrator says and the easy morals that can be drawn from his stories... I suspect he meant that story to be read a tragedy. But then, who knows. Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:47:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Candas Jane Dorsey MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >.......I would definitely have to hear a lot of strong >endorsements of this book before I pick it up. Have you read it yet and is >it better than *Black Wine*? Does it have more to offer than lyrical >prose?> FYI. Dorsey has in print two books. Black Wine (Tor '97) and a collection of short stories 'Machine Sex and Other Stories' (Tesseract '88) which includes '(Learning about) Machine Sex' the story. My brief comment on the stories....I never relax my brain when I am reading Dorsey, and I never cease to be rewarded. donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:07:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lesley Hall writes: << I could certainly help identifying with him. I just cringed at the way that he was presented as a glamorous aristocratic hero - attractive, sexy, caring, compassionate, intelligent, a gifted doctor and scientist, and capable of arousing the undying devotion of 'inferiors' - who did everything well and was sans peur and sans reproche, except for his little quirk of being a sexual sadist. What made this worse was the way that his antagonist was not only female but presented as a lower-class striver lacking in any real personal competence or gifts, who had only got where she had through the dodgy actions of a powerful patron. The class politics were almost more offensive than the sexual ones >> The funny thing is, I didn't see any sexual politics going on. I don't think the fact that his antagonist was female was particularly important one way or the other. Class did have some importance, but gender, no, not that I could see. I don't get particularly annoyed at having a female character portrayed as nasty, nor do I think it is a portrayal that is expanded to include all women. Is a book anti-feminist because the protagonist is male and his main opposition female? The society illustrated in the book showed women in positions of power, so does that make it feminist? Or is it possible that feminist/non-feminist don't apply well to a book that doesn't pay much attention to gender issues at all? (That would be my vote.) -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:08:08 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Your Name Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: <95ee5682.362ec279@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What did someone complain about messages that were not about the latest fiction novels???.....thats pretty narrow minded. Personally Im not interested in talking about books but I find it very interesting to discuss feminist sci fi and cyberpunk issues. Each to their own. Like the woman says is it too much to delete a few messages. I delete the ones about books each time.... am I going to get a repetative strain indjury?? Perhaps I should take legal action? *grin* At 01:28 22/10/98 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/21/98 12:11:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: > ><< I apologize for > making you spend your time deleting the off-topic messages. >> > > >Oooooh. Isn't this great? Now we don't have to bother clicking the mouse. >Wow, that's a lot of work. Might even break a fingernail doing it! >I always thought science fiction was about changing attitudes, having an >affect on human life, etc., etc. Especially feminist science fiction: making >a safe and interesting and challenging place for women in the world. I >thought it was a strong, gutsy, world-seering genre. >But, hey, lets just go back to 100% fiction talk and not caring about what >happens to anybody on the list. Coffee cake, anybody? > >Cripes. > >Madrone > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 21:17:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: OT Traffic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >What did someone complain about messages that were not about the latest >fiction novels???.....thats pretty narrow minded. Personally Im not >interested in talking about books but I find it very interesting to discuss >feminist sci fi and cyberpunk issues. > Okay I have now read one to many self righteous or insulting messages directed at members who have requested others exhibit basic net courtesy and honor the list purpose. I am also concerned that others that _want_ to discuss femSF literature may leave as one member indicated she was considering today. No one is saying people cannot freely discuss world events or the theoretical nuances of any topic under the sun. No one is saying folks cannot devote themselves to saving a woman from deportation. Some members would just prefer these issues be discuss elsewhere than here on FSFFU. In my 20+ years of reading feminist SFF I have never found a space devoted to the discussion of said text (with the exception of WisCon for 4 days once a year). I am, I will admit, jealously possessive of this space. And I will freely make an ass of myself to defend it as it is and I quote: "Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, Marge Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, and many others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other writers like them? The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for discussion of this literature." (from FSFFU website) Before anyone jumps in to rip me up, consider the following: - When list members indicated they did not want to discuss nonfiction hardcover within the BDG, I spent skads of my own money and time to create another website so that I, and whomever else, could carry on the discussion off list. - The first time a member mentioned a potential deportation problem, I immediately emailed privately to offer support. We have corresponded for many months now and I hope that my efforts have been helpful in some small way _and I did not need to use the list forum to be so_ - I have followed up privately with many, many list members: to inquire about and purchase items from their businesses, to offer to mail books to international members, to ask to read other members writings, to seek an opinion from an academic about non SF issues, or to carry on wildly about personal business unrelated to SFF. I can only hope that those members have found these off list connections as rewarding and valuable as I have _even though it did not take place on the list_. And I have transgressed too. OT issues have a charisma all their own. I have been wooed once too often. But in the end, the spirit (and reading addiction) sustaining power of a feminist SFF BOOK discussion list is invaluable and I bow to it by disciplining myself at any cost. with respect and a labored sigh, donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:01:22 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: OT Traffic In-Reply-To: <001501bdfeec$07c79820$14b11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You said it best Donna. Thank you. At 09:17 PM 10/23/98 -0400, you wrote: >>What did someone complain about messages that were not about the latest >>fiction novels???.....thats pretty narrow minded. Personally Im not >>interested in talking about books but I find it very interesting to discuss >>feminist sci fi and cyberpunk issues. > > >Okay I have now read one to many self righteous or insulting messages directed at members who have requested others exhibit basic >net courtesy and honor the list purpose. > >I am also concerned that others that _want_ to discuss femSF literature may leave as one member indicated she was considering today. > >No one is saying people cannot freely discuss world events or the theoretical nuances of any topic under the sun. No one is saying >folks cannot devote themselves to saving a woman from deportation. Some members would just prefer these issues be discuss elsewhere >than here on FSFFU. > >In my 20+ years of reading feminist SFF I have never found a space devoted to the discussion of said text (with the exception of >WisCon for 4 days once a year). I am, I will admit, jealously possessive of this space. And I will freely make an ass of myself to >defend it as it is and I quote: > >"Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, Marge >Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, and many others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other >writers like them? >The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for >discussion of this literature." (from FSFFU website) > >Before anyone jumps in to rip me up, consider the following: > >- When list members indicated they did not want to discuss nonfiction hardcover within the BDG, I spent skads of my own money and >time to create another website so that I, and whomever else, could carry on the discussion off list. > >- The first time a member mentioned a potential deportation problem, I immediately emailed privately to offer support. We have >corresponded for many months now and I hope that my efforts have been helpful in some small way _and I did not need to use the list >forum to be so_ > >- I have followed up privately with many, many list members: to inquire about and purchase items from their businesses, to offer to >mail books to international members, to ask to read other members writings, to seek an opinion from an academic about non SF issues, >or to carry on wildly about personal business unrelated to SFF. I can only hope that those members have found these off list >connections as rewarding and valuable as I have _even though it did not take place on the list_. > >And I have transgressed too. OT issues have a charisma all their own. I have been wooed once too often. But in the end, the spirit >(and reading addiction) sustaining power of a feminist SFF BOOK discussion list is invaluable and I bow to it by disciplining myself >at any cost. > >with respect and a labored sigh, donna > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:05:53 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: racism & commentary In-Reply-To: <19981022230745018.AAA259.92@jennifer.actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > In part : < > The main point of my original message was not to accuse anyone of racism, > however. It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which > authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. > Let's say an author from another culture - for example a south or central > american culture, includes fantastic elements in a story but those elements > are not considered unusual in that culture. It just seems to me like having > to give that story a label of "magic realism" seems unnecessary. I mean, > we're all reading or writing books saddled with a special genre label, so > the negative implications should already be clear. If nobody else sees > anything strange about it, that's fine. I'm just glad to have this forum > to ask the question. > > Jennifer > jkrauel@actioneer.com > Jennifer, Your post reminds me of what all my old comparative literature professors swore by (me too, I guess, or I wouldn't have majored in it): that if you want to know the truth of Art, go to the source. It's an aweful lot of work, not everything can be read in its own language, with a sufficient knowledge of the land and culture that produced it, but that's the way it was written; unless the author is playing on just this aspect of fiction, that's the way it should be read (IMHO). Failing that difficult but ideal level of knowledge, I think your post is an appropriate reminder, especially to American readers, that much of the filter from other sources than the domininant paradigm (:>) is like a funnel: broad at its base, but very narrow once it gets to the ear. It's frustrating - to create Real Art, people have to speak the unadulterated truth. But they live and are read in contexts that for all but the very few, keep asking them to paraphrase. Kathleen (who will shut up now that she has most authors on the list raising their eyebrows) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:27:09 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: racism & commentary In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hiya, Your post reminded me of when I took a capstone/upper general ed course in English(a requirement to graduate), and got my first research experience in studying ethnographic texts. Until that course I did not realize what ethnography was about, and subsequently when I read Stanley Fish "Is There A Text In This Class?" in my Literary Criticism course it clicked a bit better. Now I pay attention to the source of the criticism, and it has opened up a perspective for me that I did not realize was there before. Am speaking of literary criticism, not the vocal stuff we have been having here lately grin. Onward! Jo Ann At 07:05 PM 10/23/98 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > >> In part : < > >> The main point of my original message was not to accuse anyone of racism, >> however. It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which >> authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. >> Let's say an author from another culture - for example a south or central >> american culture, includes fantastic elements in a story but those elements >> are not considered unusual in that culture. It just seems to me like having >> to give that story a label of "magic realism" seems unnecessary. I mean, >> we're all reading or writing books saddled with a special genre label, so >> the negative implications should already be clear. If nobody else sees >> anything strange about it, that's fine. I'm just glad to have this forum >> to ask the question. >> >> Jennifer >> jkrauel@actioneer.com >> > >Jennifer, > >Your post reminds me of what all my old comparative literature professors >swore by (me too, I guess, or I wouldn't have majored in it): that if you >want to know the truth of Art, go to the source. It's an aweful lot of >work, not everything can be read in its own language, with a sufficient >knowledge of the land and culture that produced it, but that's the way it >was written; unless the author is playing on just this aspect of fiction, >that's the way it should be read (IMHO). > >Failing that difficult but ideal level of knowledge, I think your post is >an appropriate reminder, especially to American readers, that much of the >filter from other sources than the domininant paradigm (:>) is like a >funnel: broad at its base, but very narrow once it gets to the ear. > >It's frustrating - to create Real Art, people have to speak the >unadulterated truth. But they live and are read in contexts that for all >but the very few, keep asking them to paraphrase. > >Kathleen >(who will shut up now that she has most authors on the list raising their >eyebrows) > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 01:42:58 CDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch Subject: Wildly OT: Parental Alert Content-Type: text/plain Okay, I'm going to pack several items into one post. 1. I apologize right away for being off-topic, when there's been so much OT lately and it's been a problem for some members. 2. Just wanted to reassure those who might be concerned that no, I haven't died or fallen off the face of the planet. Rather, I've spent the last six months or so in intensive wedding planning. Yes, mine. The big day was Oct. 17, the ceremony was wonderful, the reception a blur, and I'll set up some pictures on a website in a few weeks, once we get our pictures back and can get some of them scanned in and so forth. (If anyone is especially anxious for details, go ahead and email me privately -- I have no problems with gushing about it all. grin!) 3. Okay, to the actual point. I figured I would submit this for the parents on the list (or concerned aunties and uncas, even, since I only fall into the auntie category myself). I was in a video arcade today and saw a game that really disturbed me. I'm sure most folks are familiar with the 'shooter'-style video games where the player has a plastic gun that they shoot at the screen. They've been getting almost scarily realistic these days, which had made me uncomfortable before, but I saw one today called "Platoon" where the player uses a plastic gun to shoot at actual live-action footage of people. I didn't stick around to see if women were being shot at as well as men, but regardless - IMO, it's one thing to have kids shooting at cartoon representations of people, it's quite another to have kids shooting at footage of actual people. Just thought I'd submit that for the concerned parents out there - I just saw this tonight so I'm still thinking up options, but I think at the very least I'll be sending a letter of protest to my local video arcade requesting they get rid of this particular game. Again, I apologize for adding to the OT problem, but I thought this made for a good public-service announcement type of thing for those of us on the list concerned about how much realistic violence our kids are being exposed to these days. Best to all, Barb BJBenesch@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:10:26 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: magic realism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which >> authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. While 'magic realism' is considered a valid identifier of some types of literature, I have many times seen it used as media coding for saying a work was not by a white NA when it is reviewed by a white NA. Which made me enjoy even more Susanna J. Sturgis' use of the term when she edited her third collection of SFF stories, which did not use it to identify where the author was from or what race they may be. ('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91) Her opening essay addresses the use and origin of the term 'magic realism'. As for 'magic realism' and U.S. ethnocentrism? I have a one comment - Transubstantiation and "ghosts stories". donna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:26:56 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: OT Traffic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 24-10-1998 3:17, donna simone said: >"Interested in talking to other people about the works of Ursula Le Guin, >Marge >Piercy, Suzy McKee Charnas, Elisabeth Vonarburg, Joanna Russ, and many >others? Want to find out more about these authors, and other >writers like them? >The Feminist Science Fiction, Fantasy & Utopia ListServe is a space for >discussion of this literature." (from FSFFU website) OK. I'd just like to ask one question. Is the discussion to be limited *strictly* to *sf* *feminist* *books*? If there are gender issues in non-feminist sf books is that OT? If there are gender issues in non-sf books are they OT? And if so, can they be tolerated for a short while? If there are gender issues in sf movies, tv shows, comics or games, can they be discussed? If the discussion starts from a sf feminist book but then focuses on, say, how important political issues should be in fiction, is that discussion to be taken off list? This is because I'd really love to discuss the significance of violence in Banks' book somebody mentioned in the thread about Matthews, but I'm afraid it's too much OT, and I've overstepped the limit a couple of times too many. (Which is a pity btw because the people in the Banks list, unfortunately unmoderated, don't seem interested in this kind of discussions). Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:22:45 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Bertland Subject: Re: The Death of Dr. Island In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Friday, 23 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > What concerns me about this story is not Wolfe's depiction of Dr. > Island--I think Wolfe intends him to be scary and manipulative. I am > just concerned by the end, where the child is "healed" by having the > troubled consciousl half of his character shut off, which seems to me > to be very much like killing him. The fact that this type of > resolution ends the story suggests to me that the death of the girl is > meant to be seen as ok, like the death of half of the boy's > personality. To me, this fits in with the destruction of the world > to bring the New Sun. It's not so much that I feel Wolfe is saying > that the girl is worthless because she's a girl. But I do feel that > he's saying it's ok to sacrifice her. > The ending is surely a tragic one (or at least unfortunate) and not a celebration of the sacrifice of a young woman. An important element of this reading that you allude to at the beginning of your post but don't follow through on is the depiction of Dr. Island itself. Dr. Island is not just a psychiatrist, nor is it just scary and manipulative. It is also clearly depicted as a stand-in for society at large - the society of the story but it is not hard to see the allusion to societies today. And as depicted by Wolfe with skillful indirect descriptions, since none of the action actually takes place outside the "island", it is an unpleasant and cynical society. Dr. Island continually makes the point to its young patients that the world is a cruel place where bad things happen to good people for no good reason and that they need to get used to it. The other important quality of Dr. Island is that it is flawed, perhaps deeply, and Wolfe lets us know that. For instance, when it discovers that it does not have the necessary IQ testing data for Nicholas, it admits that it now has no idea how to treat him. It is really difficult to conclude that Dr. Island has any idea what it is doing, and by association it is hard to believe that society has any idea what it is doing in the case of these children. For after all, it is working on the premise that with genius necessarily comes madness - control/cure your intelligent madmen and madwomen and maybe they will get you out of the mess you've made. It is this society that is willing to sacrifice "sick" children in order to find a saviour, and it is never presented as having the moral clout to make us think that this story actually thinks it has a happy ending or that these sacrifices are deserved. Rather, the society of the novella is a mirror of our own which sacrifices children for a myriad of reasons. There are a lot of other things going on in the story which I won't go into namely because I don't understand them in such a way that I could go into them. Wolfe does enjoy writing complex, multilayered, and misleading stories. But I don't think that any of it presents any serious problems for what I said above. If it does, I'm sure someone will tell me. -John Bertland ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:34:03 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Agnes Witte Subject: Re: : SF in different countries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT > How does the language you write in affect what you write, > and how is that effect different from the effect the culture you live > in has on your writing? This has been discussed in lots of sf novels. Suzette Haden Elgin writes about the influence language has on the complete feelings/behavior/communication in her Native Tongue novels. Her message is to create your own mother tongue if you cannot live with the old. The Women in her distopian society are surpressed in various ways. As the women in the linguist lines, who are very busy translating alien languages for business talk between the government and visitors from outer space, manage to get houses on themselves they start creating an own language. Being professionel linguists, they very quickly find out, that they cannot simply translate the old, man-related language into new words, but must define new explanations, encodings, which express or describe situations/emotions/acting (...) that had no value in the men's society but are of central interest to themselves. The way in which language influences daily life was in fact mentioned in a large number of utopian sf-novels, such as Babel 17 (Delany), Woman on the Edge of Time (Piercy) 1848 (Orwell), The Dispossessed (LeGuin)... For example, in The Female Man (Russ), you can see that the protagonist's alter egos different background and present behavior goes parallel with the different way they use language (or communicate, to put it more general). Same thing in "real life": A society which uses both male and female forms makes women visible, whereas the pure "saying the male form but meaning both sexes" makes women a poor minority. Of course that does not only affect men and women, but everything your culture/society deals with. So I find it hard to differenciate between the language you write in and the culture you live in, no matter whether there is further research or discussion on litarary themes going on. Agnes Agnes.Witte@t-online.de ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:34:08 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: Excuse me? >I find it very interesting to discuss feminist sci fi and cyberpunk issues. >Each to their own. Like the woman says is it too much to delete a few >messages. I delete the ones about books each time Do tell: how does one discuss these topics _without_ referring to books? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:39:10 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: Excuse me?I Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/24/98 8:29:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Lesley_Hall@CLASSIC.MSN.COM writes: << how does one discuss these topics _without_ referring to books? >> Well...not ALL the ones about books, but some. Every list I've been on has some threads, issues or...even...book discussions that I don't find real interesting and I just delete them. I just think it's unbelievable that we would have the kill the Marina Safety thread because a couple of people don't want to have to bother to delete it. What kind of people are we? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:01:44 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: Excuse me? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/23/98 9:10:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kandeway@AMAZON.COM writes: << I don't > think there is a problem with taking this off list >> I am having some qualms here, and not sure what the actual feeling is on the list. I take my reading seriously. The reason I read feminist science fiction is BECAUSE it has questions and thoughts about life for women. I don't want to be a useless page turner, or the kind of person who curls up with a good book and wishes the people outside would hush their fears so as not to disturb my read. I have very much enjoyed the books recommended here but feel that they are enjoyable to me as a person insofar as they work into real life. Some of us were interested in what was happening to a real life woman, Marina. She had a forum here, and people to talk to. And we get people bitching because of her messages? Are we reading feminist science fiction JUST FOR FUN? Or, on a more human level, how do you suppose you would feel if you were worried about deportion and people complained about your posts to the list? I, also, enjoyed the cyberpunk discussions and all the asides because books aren't just a rainy day diversion, they are part of what builds an intellectual, viable, speaking community. Are our lives really so little touched by what we read? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:49:18 -0600 Reply-To: egarrett@du.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Erin Garrett Organization: None Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Short of a direct > statement from the author, I don't think either of us is equipped to > judge which reaction she intended. > True, in terms of determining an author's intentions, but why should we look to an author to gage our own readerly responses? Graphic depictions of violence or sex have extreme effects on readers, but those reactions (in my own limited opinion) shouldn't be evaluated/measured according to what an author intended. Let's face it, readers are trapped in their own subjectivities, rendering what an author intended, for all points and purposes, moot. The reason I put this out there is that in my graduate program debates rage regarding intentionality and reader response. I'd be very interested to hear where listmembers stand on this particular critical question. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:28:39 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: eva Subject: Re: OT Traffic In-Reply-To: <001501bdfeec$07c79820$14b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, donna simone wrote: > Okay I have now read one to many self righteous or insulting messages > directed at members who have requested others exhibit basic net > courtesy and honor the list purpose. [snip] > No one is saying people cannot freely discuss world events or the > theoretical nuances of any topic under the sun. No one is saying folks > cannot devote themselves to saving a woman from deportation. Some > members would just prefer these issues be discuss elsewhere than here > on FSFFU. [snip] i hate to post to the list with such a brief comment, but i feel like i should voice my agreement here. i think that this list can certainly be a great way to make connections with people, and to start things that may branch far and wide from the topic of femSF. but it is plain and simple courtesy to take it off-list when it starts to wander too far. this does *not* mean that the topic under consideration is unimportant or trivial - indeed it may be more "important" than book discussion. but we're a group of people that has come together for the express purpose of femSF discussion. i think it's incredibly unfair to lay a guilt trip on those who (whether due to lack of resources or lack of interest) would like to stick to that purpose to some degree. not to mention that for certain topics - the deportation issue, e.g. - it would probably be much *more* useful to move that to a private forum where a *small* group of people can organize and strategize, and let the list know of any emergency situations, or if some sort of large group effort is required. my two cents. -> eva ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 12:51:41 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: magic realism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit donna simone wrote: > > As for 'magic realism' and U.S. ethnocentrism? I have a one comment - > Transubstantiation and "ghosts stories". > Thanks for your post, I will have to check out that anthology you mentioned. I am very interested in this conversation about magic realism. It's funny you should mention transubstantiation-- In catholicism, that's when the wine turns to blood and the bread to flesh-- literally. Much of Catholic oral history is similar to magic realism. I've noticed in my reading of texts that were considered magic realism there is a sense of juxtaposition-- one culture against another (often colonial) culture, the past and it's folklore moving from a static place of nostalgia to an actual presence in the present. Or one culture being taken over and incorporated into another so the hybrid is full of these juxtapositions--(the catholicsm example-- taking the Hebrew bible and many elements of conquered peoples indiginous faiths) Or, as in ghost stories, as you bring up above, there is often a spritual inquiry taking place in a world that is supposedly rational and spiritless. i.e. Sheridan Le Fanu's work-- I think he's said to be the "originator of the modern ghost story" and he was very influenced by the writings of the mystic Emanuel Swedenborg. I once read an essay on Magic Realism that claimed that U.S. anglo-saxons could not write in this genre because they didn't occupy a cultural position that would allow them to frame such juxtapositions-- and that the surreal media machine had somehow eliminated the possiblity of this framing. I wish I could remember where that essay was, now. I was talking to my husband about all this, and he mentioned Patricia Geary's STrange Toys. Has anyone read this? It won the Philip K. Dick award, and I think it's marketed as scifi or speculative fiction, but might it be considered 'magic realism'? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 13:52:48 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 14:34 24/10/98 +0000, you wrote: > >I find it very interesting to discuss feminist sci fi and cyberpunk issues. >>Each to their own. Like the woman says is it too much to delete a few >>messages. I delete the ones about books each time > >Do tell: how does one discuss these topics _without_ referring to books? >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com Your kidding right??!?? Feminist sci-fi and cyberpunk dont have to have anything to do with books!! We live in societys totally surrounded by computers and technology that affect womens lives everyday! This isn't some fiction out of a novel this is becoming reality. When I found the site I wasn't looking for books I was looking for feminist views on science fiction, technology, computers, cyberspace... thats why Im here! ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 22:16:08 -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: Excuse me? (Security & Truth) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:52 PM 10/25/98 +1100, you wrote: >>Do tell: how does one discuss these topics _without_ referring to books? >>Lesley >>Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > >Your kidding right??!?? Feminist sci-fi and cyberpunk dont have to have >anything to do with books!! We live in societys totally surrounded by >computers and technology that affect womens lives everyday! This isn't some >fiction out of a novel this is becoming reality. When I found the site I >wasn't looking for books I was looking for feminist views on science >fiction, technology, computers, cyberspace... thats why Im here! Well actually, if it were reality, it would be science, and not fiction... If not for books, this list could be about TV and film; but in any case, it's about something which is not present in our day-to-day lives. For talk about science, there are any number of newsgroups. Though you do raise an interesting question: does technology affect women differently than men? Does science deify Truth, thus echoing a patriarchal, authoritarian attitude that (surprisingly, considering the very basis of the scientific method) cannot be questioned or revised? (Donna Harroway's book is good to read, for these questions--sorry, can't remember the name off-hand) Sometimes I suspect it is only human to yearn for solidity and security in knowledge, whether it be promulgated by God, Man, or Mommy. But I think men are more insecure (shall we postulate as cause ejection from the womb, and not being able to carry one around, in all Freudian [in]sincerity?), and therefore are the ones to have first come up with a bunch of theories that will let them find their place again.... I joined the list to talk about literature, and also because I didn't quite know what feminism was. I'm still not sure about the latter, but I've done a lot of the former... Quite tongue in cheek, Heather =) "I don't WANNA work on a Saturday night!" http://www.zipcon.net/~hlm ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 09:06:38 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: Excuse me? (Security & Truth) Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24 Oct 98, at 22:16, Heather MacLean wrote: > (Donna Harroway's book is good to read, for these questions--sorry, can't remember the name > off-hand) Probably Donna J Haraway's _Primate Visions_ written about 1990 or _Crystals and Fields_ (early 80s?). If anyone's interested I'll get Mike to post the full biblio details. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ___________________________________________________ Michael love Hereattached latest table ex Sergei via Irina. The blowup makes it much clearer. If correct we'll go with it so leave on m/f. All else completed! You win - Mary was good - double or quits on the next? Irina was almost wearing the blouse we gave her. I was afraid she'd cough and get arrested! Confirmed: meet Khreschatyk Hotel LOT counter @ 22:00GMT. DONT come out to the airport. Couldn't get Woijek but left message that we'll be leaving v early tomorrow. Till tonite Anthea ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 01:52:43 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: Excuse me? Madrone writes: "Are we reading feminist science fiction JUST FOR FUN? Or, on a more human level, how do you suppose you would feel if you were worried about deportion and people complained about your posts to the list?" There are many reasons a person could have for reading feminist science fiction. I don't believe anyone should set herself up as the arbiter of which are the "correct" reasons for this interest. I also don't believe anyone has the right to decide for another what areas are important for discussion. People have joined this list because it is specific to feminist science fiction. Other topics are relevant and interesting to a discussion of feminist science fiction and can enhance our understanding of the subject, but completely hijacking the list for another forum is not. As Eva said: "i think that this list can certainly be a great way to make connections with people, and to start things that may branch far and wide from the topic of femSF. but it is plain and simple courtesy to take it off-list when it starts to wander too far. this does *not* mean that the topic under consideration is unimportant or trivial - indeed it may be more "important" than book discussion. but we're a group of people that has come together for the express purpose of femSF discussion. i think it's incredibly unfair to lay a guilt trip on those who (whether due to lack of resources or lack of interest) would like to stick to that purpose to some degree." As for "laying a guilt trip." Feel free to lay it, but it's not sticking here. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 11:51:58 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: Excuse me? (Security & Truth) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 25-10-1998 5:16, Heather MacLean said: >Does science deify Truth? Of course not. Just healthy skepticism. Some things are indeed felt to fairly settled, as for example for the Earth orbiting the Sun and not vice-versa, but only in a certain reference frame. If truth is Absolute Certainity, it has no place in science. If it is the equivalent of "well, the sun *may* not rise from the East tomorrow, but I think it is very, very, very probable that it will" then ok, science places some importance on it - but so do all of us in our everyday life, don't we? Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:45:09 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: Excuse me? I seem to recall that some while ago--?maybe last year--there was considerable argument about whether the list should be split into discussions of books/print media on the one hand, and tv and film on the other. As someone who scarcely ever watches tv and has hardly ever seen the films under discussion, I am sometimes mildly peeved when my mailbox is full of postings on some programme I've never even heard of, or film that hasn't reached the UK and that I'm probably not going to see when it arrives: I had a certain amount of sympathy with this, but couldn't get particularly heated over the issue. Hey, that's what being on a list is about - the overlap between one person's interests and anothers is never going to be absolute. The H-Women list has more on North American women's history than is usually of much interest to me as a British historian, and the Victoria list has a great deal on literature, art, etc, which is to say the least peripheral to my concerns as a historian. But I still go on subscribing because there is that percentage of stuff that I'd hate to miss. How do you draw hard lines without excluding _something_ that's going to be interesting, relevant, etc to at least a significant proportion of the list members? Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:45:16 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: Excuse me? >Your kidding right??!?? Feminist sci-fi and cyberpunk dont have to have >anything to do with books!! Oldfashioned person that I am, I was under the impression that these issues were being discussed in books long before the current moment. Just as a matter of interest, where do you locate feminist science-fiction if it's not in books? Is it in films, tv, computer games, websites, graphic novels, etc? It's got to be some sort of 'text' that has to be 'read' even if not in conventional printed book form. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:22:24 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Regression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay. I wasn't going to add anything further to this issue, but I just want to correct an impression to which I may have contributed. When I responded to the question of whether Marina's posts were off topic and excessive, I was using her issue as an example. There have been a lot of off topic posts, and Marina herself contributed very little to them. She seemed quite willing to continue discussion of feminist literature, but someone else continually brought her back to the deportation issue. Now, her name keeps coming up as the focus of this off topic debate. Maybe we could reach a point somewhere between banning anything with the slightest hint of being off topic, and a completely open forum. I know that's a difficult concept: moderation. However, if we could use some judgment as things arise, we may be able to survive this onslaught of pettiness to arrive at something resembling considerate and reasonable discourse. Also, if Marina has anything to post about her issues with the group, I would be happy to hear about it. But I don't think it's necessary for anyone else to carry her banner for her. If anyone knows whether there is a Thin Skins Anonymous forum, please let me know where it is; I might be interested in joining. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 14:45:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Bertland Subject: Book of the New Sun In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > (Quoting what follows from Janice Dawley) > Re: *Shadow of the Torturer*. Just finished reading all four books of > the New Sun. I didn't find that there was that much psychological > insight or sociological relevance to the books. They were much too > heavily weighted with Christian symbolism, which I personally found > off-putting. It's implied that the only reason Severian is able to > transcend his upbringing in the Torturer's Guild is that he was fated to > do it. And the new sun, which will save this dying world from itself, > will cause a devastating flood a la Noah, conveniently ridding the > planet of all those "corrupt" folk. They were interesting books simply > for the style and all the obscure references but culturally penetrating > they were not. > > > Culturally penetrating it wasn't, that's very true. And relevent in any >real feminist sense, it wasn't either. And that stupid flood that kills >everything...why bother to have a New Sun, if you have to kill off a whole >world? (But then I did feel that that fifth book just plain was >disappointing) A lot of people found the fifth book, or coda, disappointing, myself included, but it is still better than a lot of the drivel that gets published as sf. It appears disappointing when measured up against The Book of the New Sun. This work is indeed culturally penetrating precisely because of Wolfe's command of symbols that are central to the culture he was writing in. You might not share that culture, so naturally you would come at the work from a different angle. But it is worth pointing out that he is not only using Christian symbols or retelling Christian myths but also using symbols from all over the place (Severian is not just Christ, the new son, he is also Apollo, the new sun) including science fiction itself. The BotNS is a metatext of science fiction. One of the things Wolfe excels at is taking tired old cliches and trappings of sf and breathing new life into them, showing them in a new light, and in the process rendering them almost unrecognizable. The BotNS is filled with such work. Elements of it might seem like fantasy, yet it is rigorously science fictional. So if sf is part of your culture, I'd say the book is relevant. The strongest aspect of it, however, is Wolfe's command of language (this is not something that is *merely* stylistically interesting) and the sheer literateness of it. It is above all a text about text. And regarding the New Sun and flooding - it is not there simply to retell the flood story and show us that Wolfe has read the Bible. Wolfe never uses these symbols without commenting on them. The key to the apocalyptic rebirth is in Severian's character which is itself a mirror of the nature of the universe. Severian is a torturer. He is cold and cruel. He is inhuman. So is the universe. The floods will not somehow cleanse the earth of evil and save the good. They will wipe out whoever they do, and those that survive will go on doing the same things humanity has done for millenia. It is a somewhat bleak view of the universe, perhaps, but it is consistant over much of Wolfe's work. No one wants to hear this sort of advice about a book they didn't overly enjoy, but reread it. It requires at least a couple of readings to begin to decipher it let alone begin to analyze and understand it. Not that I fully understand it. But no one wants to hear advice anyway. > > I suppose Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun is in that allegorical or >mythic mode...much easier to conceive of stories in this mode if you're >male and/or white and so able to take your assumptions about reality for >the universal. I find this conclusion a little puzzling as I've also had feminists tell me that women were superior at thinking in the mythic or allegorical mode since men were so bogged down in objectivity and rationalism. Ah well - I like diversity. On a side (but somewhat related) note, you might like Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun better. It is a more "human" book in that the characters really are people this time, and it is a very different experience that might suit you better based on your observations of the BotNS. -John Bertland ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:25:06 EST 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: Excuse me? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/25/98 12:55:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: << "laying a guilt trip." >> I was not trying to lay a guilt trip. I was expressing profound surprise, and equally profound disappointment and I hold to my right to do so. I remain convinced that science fiction is not just a diversion, and that if it does not make us more human it serves no purpose. No...wait, maybe I do want you to feel something. Not guilt, I think: maybe a closer connection to the spirit of this form of literature. Maybe even a little sense of revolution and iconoclasm, and maybe even an eensy bit of dedication to living towards a better culture. But, hey, whatever you choose. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:56:27 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Excuse me? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/26/98 12:26:16 AM, Madrone wrote: <> I agree. It offers some speculative thinking. Alternatives. Shakes us up, or the best of it does. Not sure about the "more human" part, but science fiction and fantasy in their differing ways are good for the soul. lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:13:31 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/ In-Reply-To: <2073758@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jeri Wright wrote: > >Is a book anti-feminist because the protagonist is male and his main >opposition female? The society illustrated in the book showed women in >positions of power, so does that make it feminist? Or is it possible >that feminist/non-feminist don't apply well to a book that doesn't pay >much attention to gender issues at all? (That would be my vote.) > I have some pretty kinky characters in the series I am writing, so I started perusing the "adult literature" shelves for S&M titles with interesting ideas. A co-worker/grad student suggested _Venus in Furs_ by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. From his books we get the word "masochism." I found the book tedious and unreadable, so my co-worker suggested _Coldness and Cruelty_ by Gilles Deleuze. (The two volumes are available in one edition from Zone Books.) _Coldness and Cruelty_ is about the contrast between sadistic and masochistic literature. To very briefly summarize: masochism is acting out of sexual fantasies based on very strange notions of mother right and goddess worship. There is a social contract between the tormentor and the victim, and the fantasy ends abruptly if the contract is broken by either side. Sadism is based in ideas of anarchy and the transcendance of the human spirit through the violation of human laws of decency. If I remember correctly, it was an attack on father right, and there was some stuff, yada, yada, about the corruption of the father-daughter relationship. My co-worker had just done a seminar on this literature, and I'm afraid I laughed at him and said, "This is guy stuff! This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the way women readers/writers relate to torture." Being a guy and a graduate student, he didn't listen. Being a woman reader and writer (albeit sans diploma), I throw out two ideas for this discussion: Based on what I have read in commercial fiction and fanzines, what I have seen in popular movies, and what I have used in my own writing, I will suggest that women appreciate scenes of torture for two reasons: 1) it confirms the fitness of the male who is being tortured, and 2) in books that appeal to women, that torture is followed by scenes of cuddling and comfort. To illustrate my first suggestion, I offer the film career of Harrison Ford. Here is an actor who knows how to convey physical suffering. And his characters "always take a licking and keep on ticking." In _The Empire Strikes Back_ Han Solo is tortured, so that Luke will ride to the rescue. He bears up "like a man" and finally wins over Leia. The audience always laughs when Leia blurts out "I love you," just as Han is about to be lowered in the carbon freeze, and Han replies "I know." But Han isn't fooling around. He has passed his first torture test, and if he comes out of the carbon freeze alive, Leia will be his true love. Which brings us around to suggestion two: When Han returns from the first torture session, he is not thrown into a hole to suffer alone. Chewie is there to embrace and comfort him. And when he comes out of the carbon freeze, sick and blind (and brain-damaged, if we are to make sense of his goofy behavior in _Return of the Jedi_), first Leia and then Chewie are there to hold him and comfort him. (_Empire_, if you will remember, is the screenplay with the woman's touch--Leigh Brackett.) This seems to be a favorite scenario in "/" fanzines: Kirk or Spock is horribly tortured and then rescued and comforted by the other. I suspect that this was also part of the attraction of the original "bodice-ripper" romances. The heroine is assaulted by the scary hero. In this trial she finds confirmation of her womanhood, and then she is held and comforted by the hero who is no longer so scary. I haven't read _Exchange of Hostages_ yet, or the Wolfe books so I can't say if they are "guy stuff," "girl stuff," or something else. And I won't claim that this feminine take on torture has anything to do with feminism. I suspect these two ideas--see how well he'll stand up to torture and reward him if he passes the test--are stored in a primative and politically incorrect part of the female brain. On the other hand, I have heard tell of one "/" story writer, who only tortured her heroes when she had menstrual cramps. Somedays a cattle prod is just a cattle prod. . . Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:31:33 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Madrone; Point taken. Chris In a message dated 10/25/98 6:18:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, camiller@gte.net writes: << But I don't think it's necessary for anyone else to carry her banner for her. >> Gee. Thanks, Chris. Whatever would I do without you to direct my activities? By the way, as you may not have noticed, my comments include more than just Marina. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:44:36 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Feminism, maybe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heather wrote: > But I think men > are more insecure (shall we postulate as cause ejection from the womb, and > not being able to carry one around, in all Freudian [in]sincerity?), and > therefore are the ones to have first come up with a bunch of theories that > will let them find their place again.... > > I joined the list to talk about literature, and also because I didn't quite > know what feminism was. I'm still not sure about the latter, but I've done a > lot of the former... I'm new to the list, so I may have missed any discussion about what feminism means to each of us, but I'd be interested in opinions. I had a discussion about the group with a man I work with and who I respect a lot, a man I'd come to consider a feminist. And in the course of the discussion, he seemed surprised that I would include him as being a feminist. And he said, how can I be a feminist? Can men be feminists? I sat there, agape, and wondered if there was something grossly amiss in my reality. I always thought a feminist was anyone who believed in the equality of the genders and the equal rights and abilities of women in their quest for self-actualization. Well, I got out the office dictionary (I wish I could remember which it was), and looked up feminist. This particular disctionary has something called the Usage Group, 'experts' in various fields who make judgments upon the meanings in certain entries. And, according to this dictionary, a feminist can be a person of either gender, -according to 86% of the Usage Group-. What about the other 14%? I have to assume that they don't believe that the term feminist can be applied to any male. I find that kind of funny. And strange to my experience. What do others think? Chris ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:12:42 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Feminism, maybe Comments: To: Cathie Miller In-Reply-To: <3633F02C.46BE@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Men can be feminists as some women can be against feminist viewpoints. The question is how much do others agree on certain issues surrounding feminism. It would be hard to find two feminists (male or female) that agree totally on all the issues. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Cathie Miller wrote: > Heather wrote: > > > But I think men > > are more insecure (shall we postulate as cause ejection from the womb, and > > not being able to carry one around, in all Freudian [in]sincerity?), and > > therefore are the ones to have first come up with a bunch of theories that > > will let them find their place again.... > > > > > I joined the list to talk about literature, and also because I didn't quite > > know what feminism was. I'm still not sure about the latter, but I've done a > > lot of the former... > > > I'm new to the list, so I may have missed any discussion about what > feminism means to each of us, but I'd be interested in opinions. I had > a discussion about the group with a man I work with and who I respect a > lot, a man I'd come to consider a feminist. And in the course of the > discussion, he seemed surprised that I would include him as being a > feminist. And he said, how can I be a feminist? Can men be feminists? > I sat there, agape, and wondered if there was something grossly amiss in > my reality. I always thought a feminist was anyone who believed in the > equality of the genders and the equal rights and abilities of women in > their quest for self-actualization. Well, I got out the office > dictionary (I wish I could remember which it was), and looked up > feminist. This particular disctionary has something called the Usage > Group, 'experts' in various fields who make judgments upon the meanings > in certain entries. And, according to this dictionary, a feminist can > be a person of either gender, -according to 86% of the Usage Group-. > What about the other 14%? I have to assume that they don't believe that > the term feminist can be applied to any male. I find that kind of > funny. And strange to my experience. What do others think? > > Chris > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 23:16:15 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: (no subject) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/23/98 7:16:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, jcsand1@POP.UKY.EDU writes: << Incidentally, I'm a little disturbed by the idea that it is denigrating to a conversation to say that the conversation is fit to be held over coffee cake. Are the only real conversations those in which the spit flies? There seems to be a gender issue at stake here, too. >> Dear Joe: This somewhat dated reference was to the kinds of coffee claches held by married women in the '50's through 70's in which they discussed things of no importance. It took courage...and the ability to survive accusations of spitefulness, uppityness, and inappropriate behavior...for women to begin to discuss issues of some importance. I am certain we are all deathly tired of this issue, I know I am, but felt I should cue you in to the reference. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:07:07 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? (Security & Truth) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19981024202222.0f07a61a@zipcon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Whats not realistic? I guess its you point of view but it is more and more a part of our lives. PS. Its Cyborg Manifesto I think your thinking of At 22:16 24/10/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 01:52 PM 10/25/98 +1100, you wrote: > >>>Do tell: how does one discuss these topics _without_ referring to books? >>>Lesley >>>Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com >> >>Your kidding right??!?? Feminist sci-fi and cyberpunk dont have to have >>anything to do with books!! We live in societys totally surrounded by >>computers and technology that affect womens lives everyday! This isn't some >>fiction out of a novel this is becoming reality. When I found the site I >>wasn't looking for books I was looking for feminist views on science >>fiction, technology, computers, cyberspace... thats why Im here! > >Well actually, if it were reality, it would be science, and not fiction... >If not for books, this list could be about TV and film; but in any case, >it's about something which is not present in our day-to-day lives. For talk >about science, there are any number of newsgroups. Though you do raise an >interesting question: does technology affect women differently than men? >Does science deify Truth, thus echoing a patriarchal, authoritarian attitude >that (surprisingly, considering the very basis of the scientific method) >cannot be questioned or revised? (Donna Harroway's book is good to read, for >these questions--sorry, can't remember the name off-hand) > >Sometimes I suspect it is only human to yearn for solidity and security in >knowledge, whether it be promulgated by God, Man, or Mommy. But I think men >are more insecure (shall we postulate as cause ejection from the womb, and >not being able to carry one around, in all Freudian [in]sincerity?), and >therefore are the ones to have first come up with a bunch of theories that >will let them find their place again.... > >I joined the list to talk about literature, and also because I didn't quite >know what feminism was. I'm still not sure about the latter, but I've done a >lot of the former... > >Quite tongue in cheek, > >Heather >=) >"I don't WANNA work on a Saturday night!" >http://www.zipcon.net/~hlm > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:09:17 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: <001501bdfff4$d4ec4900$a0d72299@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree I think the original point here was that we dont just have to talk about books, feminist cyberpunk and sci fi is alot more than that, and personally I would hate it if we did just talk about books as I am not interested in them. At 01:52 25/10/98 -0700, you wrote: >Madrone writes: > >"Are we reading feminist science fiction JUST FOR FUN? >Or, on a more human level, how do you suppose you would feel if you were >worried about deportion and people complained about your posts to the list?" > > > >There are many reasons a person could have for reading feminist science >fiction. I don't believe anyone should set herself up as the arbiter of >which are the "correct" reasons for this interest. I also don't believe >anyone has the right to decide for another what areas are important for >discussion. People have joined this list because it is specific to feminist >science fiction. Other topics are relevant and interesting to a discussion >of feminist science fiction and can enhance our understanding of the >subject, but completely hijacking the list for another forum is not. > >As Eva said: > >"i think that this list can certainly be a >great way to make connections with people, and to start things that may >branch far and wide from the topic of femSF. but it is plain and simple >courtesy to take it off-list when it starts to wander too far. this does >*not* mean that the topic under consideration is unimportant or trivial - >indeed it may be more "important" than book discussion. but we're a group >of people that has come together for the express purpose of femSF >discussion. i think it's incredibly unfair to lay a guilt trip on those >who (whether due to lack of resources or lack of interest) would like to >stick to that purpose to some degree." > >As for "laying a guilt trip." Feel free to lay it, but it's not sticking >here. > >Joyce > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:19:20 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Knew someone would ask that. Look even apart from movies and TV, I actually decided to take on the persona of a feminist cyberpunk start of this year for my art... long story but anyway.... I had NEVER heard of feminist cyberpunk and science fiction before as an actual subject that people talked about. OUt of pure luck I thought I would try a search on feminist cyberpunk on the net and came up with this place. Now.. I had never read any books on feminist sci fi or cyberpunk and I came up with the term all by myself - and was very suprised to find it being used somewhere else. I basically came up with it from 1. Im a feminist and 2. Im a cyberpunk of sorts ( and yes I know the debate surround cyberpunk buts lets not get into that). Im a woman who is skilled in computer technology and cyberspace. Now thats where I got it from. And I use issues discussed here in my artwork. They are social comments etc. Nothing to do with novels. The term Cyberpunk may have been coined in a book but I believe it has moved far beyond that. Now the original point of this again was that we should be free to discuss more than just the books! I really dont mind deleting all the posts about novels each day and I dont think its too much that others just delete the posts there not interested in. Lets just get on with it. At 12:45 25/10/98 +0000, you wrote: > >Your kidding right??!?? Feminist sci-fi and cyberpunk dont have to have > >anything to do with books!! > >Oldfashioned person that I am, I was under the impression that these issues >were being discussed in books long before the current moment. > Just as a matter of interest, where do you locate feminist science-fiction if >it's not in books? Is it in films, tv, computer games, websites, graphic >novels, etc? It's got to be some sort of 'text' that has to be 'read' even if >not in conventional printed book form. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:26:30 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Thanks In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On a lighter note thankyou for everyones comments on Lara Croft etc. My disitation is done and I think it went quite well. It was a big help. Thanks :) ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:38:35 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" At 26-10-1998 2:13, Rebecca said: >Based on what I have read in commercial fiction and fanzines, what I have >seen in popular movies, and what I have used in my own writing, I will >suggest that women appreciate scenes of torture for two reasons: 1) it >confirms the fitness of the male who is being tortured, and 2) in books >that appeal to women, that torture is followed by scenes of cuddling and >comfort. No, no, if I may put forward my personal experience, I have never been one for the cuddling-comforting scenes... I found B5's "Comes the Inquisitor", for example, very tedious because it seemed to consist in little else. Though the fact that it seems to be a very popular episode would seem to point to the fact that my reaction isn't widespread. I find your points about the difference between masochist and sadist fiction and fantasy to be very interesting. The definition of sadism would work very well for De Sade (on whom it seems to be modeled) but very poorly for AEoH, which is curious in being very passive, and as far away from anarchy in both the society it depicts and its style as you can possibly get. And, well, I remember Leia's reaction to being tortured: next time a trooper enters her cell, she makes a joke... And immediately after jumps out and gets hold of a gun, IIRC. :-) Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 06:21:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: List purpose (was Excuse Me?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ms.Devilspin (jenn) said: And the point that followed is that this is a specifically defined mailing list about feminist SF _literature_. Discussions _do_ flow freely, however, the honored parameter is that discussions flow from a written text. (i.e.. the discussion on torture flowing from the text "Exchange of Hostages"). A further point is that a mailing list is created on such closely defined topics so that listmembers _do not have to delete bunches of mail_ to get to what the list is about. It is reasonable to ask that the list definition be honored. It is easy enough to find other outlets for subjects not covered here. Especially since in the Usenet world one can create a group on any topic under the sun. <....I think the original point here was that we dont just have to talk about books, feminist cyberpunk and sci fi is alot more than that, and personally I would hate it if we did just talk about books as I am not interested in them.> But this list _is_ about books. Perhaps there are other lists or newsgroups that address your areas of interest? Or perhaps someone versed in list design could provide a pointer or two on how to gin up a new list on feminism and cyberpunk. I know that there are newsgroups on cyberpunk, and there are other SF mailing lists that cover all media (SF-LOVERS). The SF ISP/on line communities run message boards on numerous topics ( SFF.NET and SFRT.COM). There must be a better answer than folks insisting that this list needs to be something it is not. I have enjoyed it thoroughly as just what it is: About Books. offered gently, donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 07:10:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: CRONES Update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To Potential New, and Already Established CRONES (Crazy Russ Old-timers...see www.breakingset.org ) Let us open discussion on chapter 4. I will post a brief comment sometime today to perhaps spark (or provoke ). Archiving is completed for those who would like to review previous posts. The site is now highlighted in two places. The Unofficial Joanna Russ Page (linked at CRONES) and on Catherine Asaro's web page http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ Lilith and I have a mission this month to get the site listed with some of the search engines to increase traffic and participation. Thanks to all for your thoughtful participation. peace, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:33:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: magic realism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This weekend, I was reading Robertson Davies, a Canadian white guy kind of writer, a terrible classist, and dead, alas...who indubitably wrote magic realism, particularly in his later work...also a book called Mother London by Michael Moorcock, which also seemed to be magic realism...It's everywhere! >>> donna simone 10/24 6:10 AM >>> >> It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which >> authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. While 'magic realism' is considered a valid identifier of some types of literature, I have many times seen it used as media coding for saying a work was not by a white NA when it is reviewed by a white NA. Which made me enjoy even more Susanna J. Sturgis' use of the term when she edited her third collection of SFF stories, which did not use it to identify where the author was from or what race they may be. ('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91) Her opening essay addresses the use and origin of the term 'magic realism'. As for 'magic realism' and U.S. ethnocentrism? I have a one comment - Transubstantiation and "ghosts stories". donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:11:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Conferences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Colleagues, Here are some conferences I just saw posted that might be of interest. On the Edge: Borders, Literatures, and Cultural Practices 6th anual graduate student conference. "We invite post-colonial, postmodern, feminist, psychoanalytic, and queer theory approaches to non-canonical texts. . . . Further, we encourage proposals that investigate the borders between literary texts and theories and non-literary discourses--pop-culture, film, television, music journalism, comic books, comedy. . . ." One page abstract due by 1 Feb. E-mail: mlitconf@selway.umt.edu It's at the University of Montana. The Twentieth J. Lloyd Eaton Conference on Science Fiction and Fantasy. To be held Jan 15-17, 1999, Riverside, CA. "Papers are welcome that focus on science fiction and other notable places and forms of intersection and interaction between science and the humanities, including scientific 'thought experiments,' 'mainstream' fiction, fantasy and horror literature, cinema and the visual arts, architecture and urban planning, belief systems, and other cultural manifestations." The deadline was 15 Oct, but that might be soft. E-mail: slus@ucrac1.ucr.edu ...the "ucrac1" ends in the number one, not the letter L. The Art of Being a Woman: Artistry, Creativity and Tradition in Women's Lives. March 7-9, 199 at Morehead State University in Moreheadh, KY. Keynote speaker: Sharyn McCrumb. Deadline for proposals Oct 23. "Ideas for 1999 conference submissions include but are not limited to works that focus on 1-inspiration for imagery and media, 2-media used by contemporary women artists, 3-the artisitic dimensions of women in the sciences, 4-the feminine voice in art, 5-refining the art of coming of age, 6-the cultivation of woman hood through the generations. e-mail: msu.wgws@morehead-st.edu. They ask for specific formats in submissions. Yours, Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:59:29 -0500 Reply-To: Anne Vespry Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne Vespry Subject: "Hurt comfort" fiction [Was Re: *An Exchange of Hostages*] Comments: To: Rebecca In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981025191331.0077f528@flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Rebecca, I think there may be some truth to your feminine vs masculine writing torture theory. At any rate, your take on "/" fiction seems to fit my reading of it. Interestingly those stories tend to be classified as "hurt comfort stories" rather than as S/M stories. My only addition to the theory might be that in female to female "/" (the Xena fanfiction universe in particular) I think sometimes the "hurt comfort" may also contain a bit of questioning issues of sexual abuse generally. That is, in the real world women who have been raped (especially as children) fear that as "damaged goods" they are no longer loveable or capable of loving. I think the "comfort" resolution may in some ways address that fear. On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Rebecca wrote: > On the other hand, I have heard tell of one "/" story writer, who only > tortured her heroes when she had menstrual cramps. Somedays a cattle prod > is just a cattle prod. . . Thanks, this line made my morning... Anne Anne Vespry ******* http://www.vex.net/~maverick After Stonewall Bookshop ***** never forget avespry(at) *** only dead fish ollisdotuottawadotca * swim WITH the stream ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:36:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Book of the New Sun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I suppose what I mean is that I read a book for a number of reasons. I just don't like that stupid flood. I don't care if it's there for philosophically sound reasons, just as I don't care that Wolfe has sound reasons for incinerating the girl in the Death of Doctor Island. Part of me just doesn't like floods killing everybody and girls getting burned to death. Does this mean that I think Wolfe is a bad author or that I only want stories with fluffy bunnies? Not at all. Part of me likes the flood very much, because it fits with the story and is big and apocalyptic; it just wouldn't work if Utopia arrived on a plate. I admire BotNS tremendously and I'm always surprised at how few people I know who have read it. I admire Wolfe a lot, too, for literary reasons rather than sociological or political ones. I still don't think that BotNS is penetrating in a sociological sense, in the way that, say, alien influences might seek to be. I don't think Wolfe wants to explore specific social problems; even his treatment of Severian, the torturer, seems to me to use torture primarily as a metaphor rather than as a nuanced exploration of what torture does to the torturer. (And I don't think I'd find it very plausible if it did try to do this, given what I have learned from presentations from the Center for Victims of Torture which is affiliated with the University I attend.) I think Dorcas remarks somewhere about how all men are torturers. In so far as there's a sociology angle, it seems to be on the dehumanizing effects of a collapse into a kind of barbarism. No one is altruistic in the larger sense...Severian may let the lady in the Pelerine costume escape, but he doesn't have a larger social philosophy about letting all prisoners escape. But the book deals more in mythic terms with the human condition, rather than in nitty gritty political philosophy. Which was what I meant, although I expressed it poorly, by saying that I didn't think the book was culturally penetrating. Black Wine, for example, seems to have a more specific political agenda than does BotNS. On the one hand, not having a specific political agenda gives a book much more universal appeal and timelessness. On the other, it does reflect a certain kind of intellectual priviledge. Similarly to Robertson Davies, if you've ever read him--his characters are all rich, well-educated, strong-willed, and hence they all get on swimmingly with the business of thinking about the human condition. (I really like Robertson Davies, although I think his politics are deficient) Similarly, by doing away with real political ideology, Wolfe can write more clearly about what he sees as universal symbols. Which might be why we hear so little about Vodalus's ideas. We see a good deal of his army and hear a good deal of his plots, but we don't actually get much ideology. Severian admires him, but is more beglamoured by him than following a detailed set of beliefs. Ditto for the Ascians--we know a bit about their society, but although it's political commentary of a kind, Wolfe's writing about them does not suggest a political strategy or a set of beliefs. He's really writing more about totalitarianism in general and the pressure toward social unity in general than about, say, China. And again, I don't think that the book has a lot to say about feminism. The women characters are all pretty conventional in their gender roles, on the assumption, I suppose, that if we relapse into barbarism, women's rights will go. I buy that. But it's a pretty simple premise, true as it may be. My thing about BotNS is that just because something is relavent to metacultural analysis does not mean it is relevant to someone's specific concerns within the culture. That is, I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that doesn't do more than contribute a little to a strategy for coping with Carol Mosely-Braun, a currently rather troubled Illinois senator. That said, I really like BotNS. It's one of those books I read over and over (while Decline and Fall sits on the shelf and has come perilously near to being given away) I like the many puzzles about references to other sf and various myths. I like the commentary about people, and I like the ambiguity of the book. Each time I read it, I focus on different things, and that focus in turn gives me clues about how I change. I also like the idea that society as we know it, with its nation-states, democracies, and universal political philosophies, is not the only form society can take. I like the contrast between our world of excessive news and the book's world of very limited news and travel. It is altogether an admirable set of books. That doesn't, however, mean that I'd rather have it than a boating manual if I were trapped on a sailboat. No work answers every cultural question. >>> John Bertland 10/25 1:45 PM >>> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > (Quoting what follows from Janice Dawley) > Re: *Shadow of the Torturer*. Just finished reading all four books of > the New Sun. I didn't find that there was that much psychological > insight or sociological relevance to the books. They were much too > heavily weighted with Christian symbolism, which I personally found > off-putting. It's implied that the only reason Severian is able to > transcend his upbringing in the Torturer's Guild is that he was fated to > do it. And the new sun, which will save this dying world from itself, > will cause a devastating flood a la Noah, conveniently ridding the > planet of all those "corrupt" folk. They were interesting books simply > for the style and all the obscure references but culturally penetrating > they were not. > > > Culturally penetrating it wasn't, that's very true. And relevent in any >real feminist sense, it wasn't either. And that stupid flood that kills >everything...why bother to have a New Sun, if you have to kill off a whole >world? (But then I did feel that that fifth book just plain was >disappointing) A lot of people found the fifth book, or coda, disappointing, myself included, but it is still better than a lot of the drivel that gets published as sf. It appears disappointing when measured up against The Book of the New Sun. This work is indeed culturally penetrating precisely because of Wolfe's command of symbols that are central to the culture he was writing in. You might not share that culture, so naturally you would come at the work from a different angle. But it is worth pointing out that he is not only using Christian symbols or retelling Christian myths but also using symbols from all over the place (Severian is not just Christ, the new son, he is also Apollo, the new sun) including science fiction itself. The BotNS is a metatext of science fiction. One of the things Wolfe excels at is taking tired old cliches and trappings of sf and breathing new life into them, showing them in a new light, and in the process rendering them almost unrecognizable. The BotNS is filled with such work. Elements of it might seem like fantasy, yet it is rigorously science fictional. So if sf is part of your culture, I'd say the book is relevant. The strongest aspect of it, however, is Wolfe's command of language (this is not something that is *merely* stylistically interesting) and the sheer literateness of it. It is above all a text about text. And regarding the New Sun and flooding - it is not there simply to retell the flood story and show us that Wolfe has read the Bible. Wolfe never uses these symbols without commenting on them. The key to the apocalyptic rebirth is in Severian's character which is itself a mirror of the nature of the universe. Severian is a torturer. He is cold and cruel. He is inhuman. So is the universe. The floods will not somehow cleanse the earth of evil and save the good. They will wipe out whoever they do, and those that survive will go on doing the same things humanity has done for millenia. It is a somewhat bleak view of the universe, perhaps, but it is consistant over much of Wolfe's work. No one wants to hear this sort of advice about a book they didn't overly enjoy, but reread it. It requires at least a couple of readings to begin to decipher it let alone begin to analyze and understand it. Not that I fully understand it. But no one wants to hear advice anyway. > > I suppose Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun is in that allegorical or >mythic mode...much easier to conceive of stories in this mode if you're >male and/or white and so able to take your assumptions about reality for >the universal. I find this conclusion a little puzzling as I've also had feminists tell me that women were superior at thinking in the mythic or allegorical mode since men were so bogged down in objectivity and rationalism. Ah well - I like diversity. On a side (but somewhat related) note, you might like Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun better. It is a more "human" book in that the characters really are people this time, and it is a very different experience that might suit you better based on your observations of the BotNS. -John Bertland ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:48:02 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: magic realism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Would Elizabeth Ann Scarborough's "The Healer's War" be considered "magic realism"? It's about a female army medic in vietnam who is given a magic talisman which allows her to see people's auras and fix them if they're sick, and hence heal them. -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Jane Franklin [mailto:JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU] Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 6:33 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] magic realism This weekend, I was reading Robertson Davies, a Canadian white guy kind of writer, a terrible classist, and dead, alas...who indubitably wrote magic realism, particularly in his later work...also a book called Mother London by Michael Moorcock, which also seemed to be magic realism...It's everywhere! >>> donna simone 10/24 6:10 AM >>> >> It was to ask about magic realism, and the extent to which >> authors with works labeled magic realism are not white north americans. While 'magic realism' is considered a valid identifier of some types of literature, I have many times seen it used as media coding for saying a work was not by a white NA when it is reviewed by a white NA. Which made me enjoy even more Susanna J. Sturgis' use of the term when she edited her third collection of SFF stories, which did not use it to identify where the author was from or what race they may be. ('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91) Her opening essay addresses the use and origin of the term 'magic realism'. As for 'magic realism' and U.S. ethnocentrism? I have a one comment - Transubstantiation and "ghosts stories". donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:55:27 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Book of the New Sun Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (quoting what follows, sort of) No one wants to hear this sort of advice about a book they didn't overly enjoy, but reread it. It requires at least a couple of readings to begin to decipher it let alone begin to analyze and understand it. Not that I fully understand it. But no one wants to hear advice anyway. Actually, I've read BotNS at least six times, and I own two editions in case I lose one. (Also own two editions of the Dispossessed, Tolkien, and Bleak House) I did hate it the first time around, when I was 15. It stuck in my head, however, and I reread it a couple years later. And I am just remembering in Urth of the New Sun, where Severian is up in the rigging and almost drifts away...it reminds me of CS Lewis's Perelandra, where Ransom is appalled by the idea that he has to physically fight the devil in the shape of the Un-Man. Does that mean, he demands, that the Fall would never have happened if an elephant had stepped on the Snake? What if Severian had drifted away? It didn't seem unlikely (Wolfe isn't the type of writer where one feels that the hero will always do fine) and it certainly might have undone the quest. Or do you feel that everything Severian did was totally fated? I felt it was something of a mixed bag. In some ways that was an interesting turning point, because his normal skills couldn't help him. > I find this conclusion a little puzzling as I've also had feminists tell me that women were superior at thinking in the mythic or allegorical mode since men were so bogged down in objectivity and rationalism. Ah well - I like diversity. On a side (but somewhat related) note, you might like Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun better. It is a more "human" book in that the characters really are people this time, and it is a very different experience that might suit you better based on your observations of the BotNS. Perversely, I didn't like the Long Sun books as much. They seemed a little thin after BotNS. And I suppose I think of Severian very much as a person. It seems that the whole book is, among other things, a portrait of Severian. (Some of what you quoted was me quoting from someone else, too. I'm not sure if that was clear. And that day I was feeling rather cross. And I also feel that there are books I enjoy politically and books I enjoy as literature. An Exchange of Hostages was one I thought politically interesting, and so forgave the style. Wolfe in general is not someone I read for his politics. ) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:57:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Tanith Lee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What do people think of her? She's got blood, gore, torture, a certain amount of comfort, and female characters, and her books are usually published in the most tacky covers imaginable, judging by the ones I have. She's also a bit overwrought, but one can't have everything. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:05:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Excuse me? I essentially agree with Joyce, since we've managed to set up a loop for Marina and most people seem to feel that we should keep the list posted if there's a crisis or some supreme effort needed. I do think that feminist sf should lead to social action--and it has! Would we have a loop or a legal defense fund if not for the goodwill of the people on this list? We're (in general) going to do our best to help Marina, and when we're not all fussed over that, or if we're not capable of fussing over that, we'll have some lovely acrimonious fights over books. However, Madrone, I thought I was the "someone" that Cathie Miller was calling names...want to flip coins for the title? >>> Joyce Jones 10/25 2:52 AM >>> Madrone writes: "Are we reading feminist science fiction JUST FOR FUN? Or, on a more human level, how do you suppose you would feel if you were worried about deportion and people complained about your posts to the list?" There are many reasons a person could have for reading feminist science fiction. I don't believe anyone should set herself up as the arbiter of which are the "correct" reasons for this interest. I also don't believe anyone has the right to decide for another what areas are important for discussion. People have joined this list because it is specific to feminist science fiction. Other topics are relevant and interesting to a discussion of feminist science fiction and can enhance our understanding of the subject, but completely hijacking the list for another forum is not. As Eva said: "i think that this list can certainly be a great way to make connections with people, and to start things that may branch far and wide from the topic of femSF. but it is plain and simple courtesy to take it off-list when it starts to wander too far. this does *not* mean that the topic under consideration is unimportant or trivial - indeed it may be more "important" than book discussion. but we're a group of people that has come together for the express purpose of femSF discussion. i think it's incredibly unfair to lay a guilt trip on those who (whether due to lack of resources or lack of interest) would like to stick to that purpose to some degree." As for "laying a guilt trip." Feel free to lay it, but it's not sticking here. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:01:11 -0800 Reply-To: laorka@meer.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Lindy S. L. Lovvik" Subject: Recorded books--Feminist Scifi/Fantasy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have recently become a fan of books on tape. (I've joined the commute crowd and needed something to make the drive less automatic). I'm a fast reader and expected I'd be bored listening to a book for many hours that I could have read in an hour or two. Instead, it's great! Listening to a skilled reader (with an expressive voice) read the story to me has augmented my interaction with the story somehow. Perhaps it echoes back to infancy when others read to me. Perhaps it reminds me of times past (of which I've read or heard) when people would read to each other in the evenings. Perhaps it's the roots of storytelling. . . Whatever it is, it makes it a pleasure to get into the car for the hour drive to work. I've even taken to listening to books while I do work around the house. I finished Octavia Butler's _Kindred_ (sooooo good--I am most admiring of her ability to write smoothly about knotty, complicated relationships) and Robin McKinley's _Blue Sword_ last week and am currently listening to Robin McKinley's _The Hero and the Crown_. Has anyone else noticed any other of "our" authors with work(s) on tape? Does listening to the works change your experience at all? I've noticed that works written in the first person (such as _Kindred_) have added impact. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:12:31 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: Excuse me? Perhaps I'm just being dense here: I still don't think you're addressing the issue of _fiction_, in whatever form. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ---------- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature on behalf of Ms.Devilspin (jenn) Sent: 26 October 1998 05:19 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Excuse me? Knew someone would ask that. Look even apart from movies and TV, I actually decided to take on the persona of a feminist cyberpunk start of this year for my art... long story but anyway.... I had NEVER heard of feminist cyberpunk and science fiction before as an actual subject that people talked about. OUt of pure luck I thought I would try a search on feminist cyberpunk on the net and came up with this place. Now.. I had never read any books on feminist sci fi or cyberpunk and I came up with the term all by myself - and was very suprised to find it being used somewhere else. I basically came up with it from 1. Im a feminist and 2. Im a cyberpunk of sorts ( and yes I know the debate surround cyberpunk buts lets not get into that). Im a woman who is skilled in computer technology and cyberspace. Now thats where I got it from. And I use issues discussed here in my artwork. They are social comments etc. Nothing to do with novels. The term Cyberpunk may have been coined in a book but I believe it has moved far beyond that. Now the original point of this again was that we should be free to discuss more than just the books! I really dont mind deleting all the posts about novels each day and I dont think its too much that others just delete the posts there not interested in. Lets just get on with it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:06:12 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: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/ >I will suggest that women appreciate scenes of torture for two >reasons: 1) it confirms the fitness of the male who is being >tortured, and 2) in books that appeal to women, that torture is >followed by scenes of cuddling and comfort. It's certainly struck me that women like heroes who suffer... mentally and physically. I believe Dick Francis' thrillers (in which the lead always gets beaten to a pulp the days before he's due to ride in the Grand National or whatever) are supposed to be more popular with women than men. Also in Dorothy Dunnett's popular Lymond sequence, the hero gets a massive overload of suffering both physical and mental, under which he (mostly) bears up with courage, wit and aplomb. I'm not sure why it is however: it is not always about the romantic (or not _only_ romantic) hero. I'm given to understand that torture, + intense homoeroticism, are recurrent themes in 'slash' fan-fiction. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:45:18 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction [Was Re: *An Exchange of Hostages*] Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 25 Oct 98, at 19:13, Rebecca wrote: > I suspect that this was also part of the attraction of the original > "bodice-ripper" romances. The heroine is assaulted by the scary > hero. In this trial she finds confirmation of her womanhood, and > then she is held and comforted by the hero who is no longer so > scary. On 26 Oct 98, at 11:59, Anne Vespry wrote: > I think there may be some truth to your feminine vs masculine > writing torture theory. At any rate, your take on "/" fiction seems to fit my reading of it. > Interestingly those stories tend to be classified as "hurt comfort > stories" rather than as S/M stories. I think that the comments Anne and Rebecca have made about "bodice strippers" and "hurt comfort" stories have strong relevance for the enduring popularity of romance novels (such as the Harlequin series). More germane to this list, I think that the "hurt comfort" theme (in a much more sophisticated form than in Halequin books) is also a common theme in Feminist SF/F. At least some popular feminist SF (Shwartz's "Heirs to Byzantium" trilogy, some of Paula Volsky's work and at least 2 of the few MZB's books I've read come to mind immediately) appear to fall into the "hurt comfort" or even S/M (MZB's _The Mists of Avalon_ and _Lady of Avalon_) category. Nicola Griffith's _Slow River_ with its self-destructive heroine appears to also in spite of its lesbian storyline. When I first started reading feminist SF/F a couple of months ago, I was struck by the resemblance between some of the storylines and those described by Rachel Anderson (Anderson 1974) which seems to imply that the themes that sold/sell romance novels are also those that sell feminist SF?f. I hate to appear sexist, but I sometimes think that fiction aimed at women needs to contain severe suffering (particularly by the heroine) for it to be satisfying to its intended market. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ____________________________________________ Anderson, Rachel 1974. _The purple heart throbs : the sub-literature of love_. London : Hodder & Stoughton. 286p. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:55:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:45 PM 10/26/98 +0000, you wrote: >I hate to appear sexist, but I sometimes think that fiction aimed at >women needs to contain severe suffering (particularly by the heroine) for >it to be satisfying to its intended market. > Mike and others, OS Card says in his _How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy_ that the best way to get a reader to care for a character is to hurt the character. We've already discussed a bit how Card's worlds are often informed or even based upon individual pain, in fact. Of course the first example of Card's theory in practice that comes to my mind is _Ender's Game_. The poor kid is hurt by virtually everyone he meets (in that book), and obviously it worked well with the general reading populace: _E's G_ was in the top 10 SF works of all time according to _Locus_'s latest poll, and the book still sells well. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:16:48 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: assorted MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For the record, and to belabor an issue, I did not intend to call anyone names. I apologize if I conveyed that idea. I will be clearer here: I feel it's somewhat patronizing to defend someone who is not interested in or willing to defend herself, and that's what I felt some members were doing. Madrone's response made me aware that I was probably wrong in that assumption. And in using the word 'defend', I don't mean that there was anything at all to defend. But when I speak for someone who apparently isn't around, I'm assuming responsibility for that person. That was my only point. On to another topic: this group is so well-read, I'm quite intimidated! Although I've been reading SF for twenty years, I haven't heard of a number of the books/authors you have been discussing. It's really fascinating to me, and makes me want to stop all extra-vocational activities (such as sleeping) to read all the things I seem to have missed. There is a very little-known series of books by a writer, Camarin Grae, which began, I believe, with a title called Soul Snatcher. These books were very popular when I was working in a feminist bookstore some years ago. I read the first one, and there are elements of S/M, torture, and psychological terrorism in that and, I understand, the other of this author's titles. Is anyone familiar with these books? There was a rumor that Camarin Grae was an alias for a famous writer. As Grae appeared to have surfaced and submerged with the exception of those 5-6 books, I was wondering if anyone knows whether this was an alias, and whose it was? Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:11:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/real violence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jane Franklin wrote: > My belief that there's a pornographic element to AEOH comes from > having had several friends who read and and who are into SM remark on > this aspect of the book, also on the book's similarity to some SM > lesbian pornography. [...] I did not linger over AEOH, but I think it > shares some qualities with things people are meant to linger over. > What I admire about AEOH is that it shows the logical outcome of > extreme violence and, I think, lays bare some of the fears and needs > that underly SM. As a matter of fact, I did find parts of the book erotic, if not pornographic. They weren't the torture scenes, though. I thought the relationship between Koscuisko and Joslire had plenty of Unresolved Sexual Tension (TM), partly because it is fraught with power issues. Joslire's caution and uncertainty when faced with this new master are explained over time as we learn what some past students have done to their bond-involuntaries and Joslire himself. The tension is heightened by Joslire's shocked realization of what K. is capable of in the torture chamber. But their relationship remains unexpectedly free of exploitation. By the end of the book Joslire trusts Koscuisko enough to give his knives to him. (The fighting knives have some mystical significance that is only partially explained.) It seemed to me that Joslire respected Koscuisko more because he knew that most people, given nearly absolute power over a bond-involuntary, would be corrupted by it. Maybe it isn't realistic that someone with the sadistic tendencies of Koscuisko could relegate them strictly to his "work" life. (In fact, in the second book, he does overstep the line traumatically.) But I don't find it unbelievable. Some emotional states are very context sensitive. Joslire's character fits pretty well the "/" profile that Rebecca and Anne were talking about in their messages -- he's been terribly abused but has survived and reaches a level of "comfort" with Koscuisko. I guess I'm a natural for this "/" fiction because I really felt for Joslire, much more than I did for Koscuisko. BTW, in case anyone is interested, the third book in this series will be coming out in a couple of months (titled *Hour of Judgment*). There is more information, as well as background on the author and her other books, at http://www.sff.net/people/Susan.scribens/. She also has a link to her own newsgroup. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Elliott Smith -- either/or "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:24:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Tanith Lee In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Does Silver Metal Lover count? Or is that book only for the endlessly adolescent? Kathleen (who probably shouldn't admit she found it a great read) On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > What do people think of her? She's got blood, gore, torture, a certain amount of comfort, and female characters, and her books are usually published in the most tacky covers imaginable, judging by the ones I have. She's also a bit overwrought, but one can't have everything. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:31:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Tanith Lee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote: > >> What do people think of her? She's got blood, gore, torture, a certain amount of comfort, and female characters, and her books are usually published in the most tacky covers imaginable, judging by the ones I have. She's also a bit overwrought, but one can't have everything. >> > > I loved the unicorn books she's been doing, and that story she had in last year's Best Fantasy and Horror knocked my socks off. It's got tons of interesting gender statements. I have kind of gotten sick of fairy tale rewrites, but that one blew me away. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:33:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] assorted / Cameron Grae MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > There is a very little-known series of books by a writer, Camarin Grae, > which began, I believe, with a title called Soul Snatcher. These books > were very popular when I was working in a feminist bookstore some years > ago. I read the first one, and there are elements of S/M, torture, and > psychological terrorism in that and, I understand, the other of this > author's titles. Is anyone familiar with these books? There was a > rumor that Camarin Grae was an alias for a famous writer. As Grae > appeared to have surfaced and submerged with the exception of those 5-6 > books, I was wondering if anyone knows whether this was an alias, and > whose it was? > > Chris > I read several of her books - I have no idea about the author's alias. I don't remember them being a series - although the themes were pretty similar - take a mainstream lesbian feminst and give her a strange power or put her into a bizzare situation to see how she reacts. I haven't read them in several years, so I don't remember too many details. In one of them (Paz, maybe?) the protagenist realizes that she is able to influence peoples thoughts, change their minds, or even forget things. In another (Winged Dancer?), the main character ends up in jail in a (South American?) country - I think that there were S/M aspects to this one - I remember not being too thrilled with some of the scenes. I think that many of her characters dealt with power issues and with trying to avoid being corrupted by power. sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:42:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: FW: [*FSFFU*] Recorded books--Feminist Scifi/Fantasy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > I have recently become a fan of books on tape. (I've joined the commute > crowd and needed something to make the drive less automatic). > > Has anyone else noticed any other of "our" authors with work(s) on tape? > Does listening to the works change your experience at all? I've > noticed that works written in the first person (such as _Kindred_) have > added impact. > > Lindy > This past summer, I had a 100 mile commute and ended up listening to lots of books on tape. I listened to MZB's _City of Sorcery_ and Ann McCaffreys' _Chrystal Line_ (I think - it was a sequal to Chrystal singer) Both were a little dissappointing - not the tape adaptations which were fine. I didn't like the end of City of Sorcery and Chrystle line was just plane irritating. The main female charachter was constantly losing control and the man was there to straighten everything out. I also heard - Ursula LeGuin's _Left Hand of Darkness_ - I love the book and the tape - the book is so rich in detail though, that the tape pales in comparison. sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:48:14 -0800 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: slash fiction/hurt comfort In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Oct 98 16:11:07 EST." <3634E56B.54A3711E@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Joslire's character fits pretty well the "/" profile that Rebecca and >Anne were talking about in their messages -- he's been terribly abused >but has survived and reaches a level of "comfort" with Koscuisko. I >guess I'm a natural for this "/" fiction because I really felt for >Joslire, much more than I did for Koscuisko. I always saw slash fiction as being a way to take the main characters of a much loved show (or whatever) and put them into situations that were more personal, in the sense of being about people. Kirk/Spock slash fiction that I've read -- and I got the tamer stuff, because it was the very early *published* novels, practically no sex at all, some people might even call it a different genre -- takes two characters who spend their entire on-screen relationship at a proper American arm's length and makes them sit down and talk about themselves and be vulnerable and so on. Traditionally, you have to beat a male hero up for *days* to achieve this. (Or have him sleep with the other person.) Also, nearly all the slash fiction I've ever read, seen, heard about was written by women. I assumed that it was a body of work in which characters who were loved by a lot of women, but who basically acted like men out of 50s TV shows, were made to do the things that those women wanted them to do: bond, form relationships, touch, whether sexually or not, etc etc, all the things that are *so* gender-divided. So it never seemed to me that it was *about* pain -- it was about the comfort that came afterwards, which you can't traditionally give between men unless one of them is hurt. Moving on, somewhat: would Mercedes Lackey's early work count as hurt/comfort? It's not quite the same thing, featuring early prolonged abuse followed by nice people who the main character can't trust, with a long period of adjustment and resentment and alienation and finally, finally, some comfort. It gets a little repetitive and I don't know that I could read those books all the way through now, but it was awfully appealing when I was an alienated anti-social high school student. It also seems to me to be a very female (I don't mean feminine) sort of plot -- wholly character driven, entirely about personal relationships and self-esteem and self-awareness and so on. I can't think of any men who write like that, though I assume there are some. Consider _Ender's Game_, in many ways the same scenario but with a protagonist who beats up his enemies. They say if you abuse teenagers, the boys attack other people and the girls kill themselves, on average. Maybe this is the same thing. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:57:05 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anny Middon Subject: Are there other lists? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I agree about the purpose of this list being to discuss feminist aspects of science fiction, fantasy and utopian literature, which is how I read the purpose of this list. But is there a list to discuss feminist aspects of science fiction, fantasy and utopian films, tv shows, music and other media? If not, is there someone on this list who might start one? The truth is, I went so far as to prepare posts on RoboCop and the sixties' TV show Bewitched, but never posted them because I realized they were off-topic. But I think there's a lot to discuss about such works (as well as more serious ones, like Gattaca or Bladerunner), and I for one would love to have a vehicle for such discussions. Anny AnnyMiddon@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:41:21 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Mike says that heroines have to have "severe suffering" for success. Hmmm... wonder if it isn't more that she we want to see her overcome, shine through, pull up her socks, despite the "severe suffering." I like to see women succeeding against the odds -- whatever they are. best, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 17:55:17 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Tanith Lee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/26/98 9:32:08 PM, Joe wrote: << I loved the unicorn books she's been doing, and that story she had in last year's Best Fantasy and Horror knocked my socks off. It's got tons of interesting gender statements. I have kind of gotten sick of fairy tale rewrites, but that one blew me away.>> I agree whole-heartedly. Made me want to go "try" her books again. I have been less than enthusiastic over what I've read, but the story you refer to is wonderful. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:03:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Are there other lists? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I say let do it! >But is there a list to discuss feminist aspects of science fiction, >fantasy and utopian films, tv shows, music and other media? If not, is >there someone on this list who might start one?.........I for one >would love to have a vehicle for such discussions. >AnnyMiddon@aol.com> CRONES is paying for and has access to: "- own home page (http://www.sff.net/people/yournamehere), with up to 20MB of storage - own FTP site (ftp://ftp.sff.net/pub/people/yournamehere) - own POP3 email box (yournamehere@sff.net) - own public-access newsgroup, sff.people.yournamehere, on news.sff.net - Access to the private areas of our news server (news.sff.net), including authority to create new newsgroups - Unlimited access to SFF Net's Chat and IRC servers - Access to SFF Net's members-only email clubs - Help building your home page from our talented and technically- sophisticated staff - Access to private areas of the Web server and FTP server (as available) " If any of these resources can help folks create/house a new list devoted to femSF media, I offer it freely. It would make better use of the space available. Let me know if this helps someone be willing to jump on the bandwagon and take on administration of content? If this is not palatable to folks, Laura Quilter accepts volunteers to work on her site. Perhaps someone could contact her directly and offer to do the work and negotiate with her to let us set up a new list on FSFFU. I am ignorant of the tech effort involved but am willing to support any effort or expense. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net >I agree about the purpose of this list being to discuss feminist aspects of >science fiction, fantasy and utopian literature, which is how I read the >purpose of this list. > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 14:58:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: The Other Gretchen Subject: Re: Tanith Lee (with a side of Sean Stewart) In-Reply-To: ; from Jane Franklin on Oct 26, 1998 11:57:26 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 On Oct 26, Jane Franklin wrote: > What do people think of her? She's got blood, gore, torture, a > certain amount of comfort, and female characters, and her books are > usually published in the most tacky covers imaginable, judging by the > ones I have. She's also a bit overwrought, but one can't have > everything. Well, I intended to lurk a while longer until I could read the assigned books, but this one has sucked me out of the woodwork. _Don't Bite the Sun_ and _Drinking Sapphire Wine_ are some of my favorite books of all time. (Really, they appear to be one book split down the middle.) The main character, "predominantly female", spends most of her time female, in an automated societies where people are kept adolescent for hundreds of years, partaking in ritualized rebellion against the adults and the society, and people can get a total body and sex change into the shape of their desire by killing themselves; she chafes against this and tries to find something to give her life meaning. This was a highly resonant book for me when I was an adolescent, but I still love it as an adult... perhaps layered with those teenage associations, so that I can't make a real unbiased decision about it now :). The book features lightly portrayed but heavy issues about gender in this book, played in a very interesting way; we see a wide variety of personalities in each gender, in a society where gender is almost "just" a label. These books are sadly far, far out of print; I haunted used bookstores for years to get my copies, after borrowing them from a friend the first time. Gender as something you can choose! Wow! I haven't read everything else by Tanith Lee, but of what I've read, I consider this the best and also the most apropos to this list. Her imagery is rich in everything she writes, but the "heroine" is less passive than most of the others I've run across. I do recommend any of her writing, even that I haven't gotten to read yet, if you happen to love fantastic, gorgeous, and yes, often overwrought, imagery. I must admit that I'm at somewhat of a loss to define "feminist" science fiction per se; one of the reasons I joined this list was to help me pin down what it meant to me, perhaps as an access point to feminism in general. Very oddly, I keep flashing to _Nobody's Son_ by Sean Stewart, which is a very *male*-oriented book, about being a son, a husband, and a father. However, when I start trying to list "feminist science fiction" to myself, along with _The Dispossessed_, _The Female Man_, and _Herland_, images from this book pop into my head, all un-called for and rather mysteriously. For excellent... magic realism?... by Stewart from a female's point of view, I highly recommend _Mockingbird_. While it's very unlike _Nobody's Son_, it's almost a gender-mirror of the book, in some ways. Feminist? Again, I'm not sure. Unless real breathing female characters, living as most women do somewhere between the gutter and the pedestal, portrayed in all their flaws and virtues, make a work feminist. -- The Other Gretchen >-< gretchen@flick.com >-< http://www.flick.com/~gretchen/ I won't forget when Peter Pan came to my house, took my hand I said I was a boy, I'm glad he didn't check -- Dar Williams ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:51:29 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: good karma and the "/" discussion Comments: cc: annymiddon@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Got my video tape of "The Lathe of Heaven" in the mail. Thanks, Anny! All Anny asked in return was my promise to do something nice for someone else. So here's my offer: Anny has first dibs; if she's not interested, I'll take whomever I hear from first tomorrow, 10/27. I received a signed first edition of Abigail Padgett's BLUE. Which has seen some discussion on the list, despite being a mystery, rather than SF. And I already have one. Therefore, it's up for grabs. Just LMK where to ship it. In other matters, I look forward to discussion on the "/" issues. I will be gone but collecting mail from 10/28 to 11/03, and anticipating interesting comments upon my return. 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: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:51:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Tanith Lee In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:57 AM 10/26/98 -0600, Jane wrote: >What do people think of her? She's got blood, gore, torture, a certain amount of comfort, and female characters, and her books are usually published in the most tacky covers imaginable, judging by the ones I have. She's also a bit overwrought, but one can't have everything. > I have her "Drinking Sapphire Wine" and whatever the prequel was, it's so old I had to get it out of the bowels of the San Francisco library, I'm sure they're long out of print and I haven't even seen them used. I enjoyed them, I thought she did some interesting things with gender switching. These particular books don't have too much blood/gore/torture, though. There's an interesting scene in one of the books that reminded me a lot of the crossing-the-desert scene in Dreamsnake. They might be classified as YA. Yes, the cover art is dreadful. Haven't read anything else by her. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 15:33:34 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis (was: magic realism) In-Reply-To: <009201bdff3e$e7ffd400$f7b11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:10 AM 10/24/98 -0400, Donna Simone wrote: >... Which made me enjoy even more Susanna J. Sturgis' use of >the term when she edited her third collection of SFF stories, which did not use it to identify where the author was from or what >race they may be. ('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91) Her opening essay addresses the >use and origin of the term 'magic realism'. Thanks for reminding me about this book, Donna. I did read it when it came out and picked up a few new authors that have become favorites, such as Kathleen Alcala. I may have asked this question before, but a cursory net search just now doesn't answer it: What is Sturgis up to these days? I used to love her column on fantasy/sf in the Feminist Bookstore News and often wondered if it was possible to get it without subscribing to the whole magazine. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:18:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cyn Subject: Re: Tanith Lee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I really enjoyed the quartet that included- Book of the Mad, Book of the Dead, though I don't always like her. I have fuzzy recollection but there were many stories mingled and I especially liked the last one, Book of the Mad. cyn ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:02:23 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis (was: magic realism) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer and all, >>('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91)>> >Thanks for reminding me about this book, Donna. I did read it when it >came out and picked up a few new authors that have become favorites, >such as Kathleen Alcala.> Yes, and Lucy Sussex. The three book series, '89 Memories and Visions, '90 Women Who Walk through Fire, and '91 Magic Realism (all on Crossing Press, all shamefully out of print), is a fantastic bridge between the 70's series Women of Wonder and todays apparent plethora of short story collections that generously represent feminist/women authored SFF stories. (Well excluding this years Annual Best SF - sigh). >I may have asked this question before, but a cursory net search just now >doesn't answer it: What is Sturgis up to these days? I used to love her >column on fantasy/sf in the Feminist Bookstore News and often wondered if >it was possible to get it without subscribing to the whole magazine.> Well, from guest notes for her most recent visit to WisCon, it appears she is concentrating on her own writing/playwriting and no longer does the column for FBN. It also appears they never replaced her column at my last glimpse of an FBN. (Sob! I used to get most of my reading tips from Susanna's column - Delia Sherman, Laurie Marks, R.M. Meluch, Melissa Scott, Mary Rosenblum, Maureen McHugh, Nicola Griffith, etc were all people she recommended at their early appearances. ) I hate to break your heart, but at Wiscon this year, a group of well intentioned amateurs performed, to great and boisterous appreciation, a Sturgis penned feminist treatment of Midsummer Nights Dream. It was the most lauded event of the Con judging by the closing days feedback session. There is a growing clamor afoot for the now feted author to birth a new treatment of some cherished classic for WisCon in 99. smiling at the fond memories, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:46:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty Subject: Request In-Reply-To: <001501be0145$760bab40$10b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am trying to locate a book I read about a year ago; I cannot remember the author or the title (shame! and me a librarian) only that it was translated from the French and involved a group of women who were kept in an underground jail. The guards were male; at the end the guards disappear, the women emerge and find that they are the only ones left on the planet..they don't know where they are, how they got there, nor what happened to their jailors. If anyone else is familiar with this book, I would appreciate it... Thanks. JB. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:59:19 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Request: I Who Have Never Known Men Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" _I Who Have Never Known Men_ Harpman, Jacqueline. Trans. Ros Schwartz. New York: Avon, 1995. At 08:46 PM 10/26/98 -0500, you wrote: >I am trying to locate a book I read about a year ago; I cannot remember >the author or the title (shame! and me a librarian) only that it was >translated from the French and involved a group of women who were kept in >an underground jail. The guards were male; at the end the guards >disappear, the women emerge and find that they are the only ones left on >the planet..they don't know where they are, how they got there, nor what >happened to their jailors. If anyone else is familiar with this book, I >would appreciate it... >Thanks. > >JB. > > http://www.zipcon.net/~hlm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:43:39 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edythe Huffman Subject: Re: Request: I Who Have Never Known Men In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19981026180523.46076fa8@zipcon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I read this book twice in the first two days after I checked it out. It so impressed me that I then bought the book; something I do when I KNOW I will reread something. The spirit of the narrator, who became a very compassionate and civilized human being, is very compelling and inspirational. Consider, too, that it was written in French and translated into English; very good work by author and translator. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hennepin County Library Edythe Huffman ehuffman@sun.hennepin.lib.mn.us Eden Prairie Library phone: 612-829-5460 479 Prairie Center Drive fax: 612-941-6035 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:28:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: List purpose (was Excuse Me?) In-Reply-To: <001f01be00d2$ba6eac60$64b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, since I feel responsible for this particular almost-flame-war about on- and off- topic discussions, these are my two and a half cents: It is true that the primary goal of this list (as outlined in the initial message we all received after subscribing) is to discuss feminist aspects of science fiction and fantasy. I don't think anyone argues with that. However, as long as I am on this list, this question about off-topic themes has came up about as many times as "what is feminism", and created as much controversy as that one. The interesting part is that off-topic discussions themselves in fact are _always_ present, and die out peacefully most of the times. However, every once in a while, we get a person who starts a discussion about off-topic discussions, and since the implied meaning of such posts is a request to shut up, this always results in a very heated conversation. Now, I said this many times, and I'll say it again -- the best way to change the main topic of conversation is to POST SOMETHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT. A fantasy book you want to discuss. A science fiction movie. I'm pretty sure we all would love to participate. So you'll have to delete only 5% of messages instead of the half. Mailing list is not a TV channel, it has on what _you_ put there, and ifsomeone wants to discuss science fiction, they are more than welcome to do so -- hey, that's why we are here. That will change the "predominant" topic of the discussion a lot faster than scolding other people for "not posting what I came here to read". No one is obliged to entertain anyone here, you know. Each of us is responsible for posting there material that we want to see discussed. That said, I'd like to remind you are that no one is obliged to help anyone here (or anywhere), either. For God's sake, I'm not going to put a curse on a person because she does not want to know about something related to my life. And the "guilt trips", I'm afraid, exist mainly in the imagination of those who is trying so hard not to "let them stick". You don't have to do anything if you don't want to, OK? The main reason I kept writing about my immigration situation is because people kept asking me. And the accusation of "hogging the discussion" is unfair for one simple reason -- our messages in no way interefered with a hundred of sf-related messages that could have been posted at the same time, including by the people who were so unhappy with the topics discussed. What did not let them post messages about sf at the same time? Is it because saying something yourself is a bit less easy than griping on others for not saying what you want to hear? I've also noticed (from the previous battles of that sort as well) that people get started on the "relevance" issue when they are made uncomfortable by some particular issue discussed, but do not have the courage/consider is impolite to object to it directly. Just look in the archives of this list, this happens over and over. Now, in my case, I can see two reasons for this to happen. One, the situation with women in my country is a little too disturbing, more than many people want to know about. All that rape and torture -- way too graphic and scary, and not as much fun as the safe thrill of science fiction. Therefore, some people would rather turn it off, like a scary movie, to preserve their inner peace. After all, if they wanted to get hear about that, they would have joined some feminist politics list. The second reason why some people may not want to hear about this stuff (and I cannot blame them on this one :) )is probably my personality. I am not a particularly warm and fuzzy individual, nor I by any means indend to be so, therefore I can understand people who would rather not be in a position to feel sympathetic to a person who gets on their nerves on regular basis. Hey, it's OK, too -- I'd rather say what I think than be liked by everyone. And if it gets me in the situation where lots of people would rather see me gone -- the hell with it. I gave up on being popular long time ago. In any case. I just want to remind everyone, that off-topic discussions have happened before, and will happen again. If we all are going to get particular about this, we could check the archives and count how many times those who object the "off-topic posts" in this particular instance had had started and/or participated in some other off-topic discussions in the past. So that we could find out who's more "without sin". In either case, no matter how wildly people object to the "disgressions", they will keep happening. People who come to Church, come there to pray and listen to the sermon, but they also talk to their friends about totally unrelated matters while there are at it. People at work call home and gossip sometimes when they are on-clock, even though they are not paid for that. That's the way humans are, you can never make them concentrate on just one thing "or go outside". The advantage this mailing list has over other social gatherings is that each of us can talk about something "on-topic" as much as they want to. There's no microphone to fight for. If you came here to talk about science fiction -- go for it, post something. If right now you have nothing to post, you cannot blame others for not doing that for you. And if because of the slowdown, off-topic discussions become more visible -- hey, that's why they are marked OT. They are not there to irritate you. And if you don't want them to "take up half the list", post some sf-related messages. People might respond to those, too, and who knows -- the sf postings might become dominant again. Not claiming to be always right, but still entitled to my opinion, Marina P.S. For those who will get upset with me writing this -- remember, this is off-topic too, so please send the insults and expressions of outrage in private email. :P http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:49:36 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Animated sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I watched the reruns of Aeon Flux a few days ago. IMHO, it's a very interesting combination of Wonderwoman with Catwoman of sorts. On one side, she's a "good" character, on the other -- far from being a saint. Even though I did not like what they did to her in the last few episodes, I still consider Aeon one of the most impressive images of a female hero. What do you think of her? Anyone knows if they ever going to continue that show? 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, 26 Oct 1998 22:12:12 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Re: List purpose (was Excuse Me?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit well, this isn't an insult (I hope) or an expression of outrage, but i will post it privately, anyway. I Love what you wrote! (which, I realize, may not matter to you in the least) I was thinking you wouldn't be here anymore. I couldn't figure out why you would leave, because it seemed so unlike you to leave over a few people's saying this topic or that topic was taking up too much room. Anyway, I had just joined the group when you were discussing the Balkan sit., and I, for one, was very appreciative of that subject and others' being discussed and found your posts among the most enlightening. That's about it. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:25:08 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: peeves MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina; I haven't read The Shadow Man and can't discuss that, but I did want to comment on something you said: > People at work call home and gossip > sometimes when they are on-clock, even though they are not paid for that. > That's the way humans are, you can never make them concentrate on just one > thing "or go outside". This is something that really bugs me about the people in my office. I just don't get it. Why can't people be more orderly? Chris (P.S. just kidding. liked your post.) 8^) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:27:00 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Re: List purpose (was Excuse Me?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marina; Well, god, i'm a dork. I posted my private message to the group. what do you think will happen? 8^) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:03:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: Are there other lists? In-Reply-To: <12272b21.3634f031@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'd be interested in joining Anny and interested others in this list as well... Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:03:13 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Animated sf In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hiya, I watch Aeon when I can catch it (being in school this usually means between quarter breaks hehe)...I get into the animation sometimes more than the storyline, I mean the ability to put it all together into a coherent storyline just leaves me there saying to myself, wow, this is pretty cool stuff. Wasn't it a couple weekends ago they had like an all day marathon? I tried to watch the one where Aeon got the blame for the death of this gal's boyfriend, because I never saw the end of it...Maybe what fascinates me about it is that I can see our immediate future of looking that slick yet dreadful at the same time, like when you see kids portrayed as street punks when they are really smarter than they are being given credit for, that sort of universal truth being subtly shaded. What makes Aeon have a bit of "depth" to her persona is yes she has this perpetual thing for her nemesis and yes every now and then they hit the hay, but the other characters in the story are allowed to see the "hero" is not perfect either, which takes it away from the "superhero" mentality. She has this side to her that has her pro-offer help in a situation, but yes, she is gonna set out for whatever it is she wants. The most satisfying storyline for me was the one where at the end she becomes someone's mother, a role that normally you would never imagine Aeon to become. Grin. Jo Ann At 10:49 PM 10/26/98 -0600, you wrote: >I watched the reruns of Aeon Flux a few days ago. IMHO, it's a very >interesting combination of Wonderwoman with Catwoman of sorts. On one >side, she's a "good" character, on the other -- far from being a saint. >Even though I did not like what they did to her in the last few episodes, >I still consider Aeon one of the most impressive images of a female hero. >What do you think of her? Anyone knows if they ever going to continue >that show? > >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, 26 Oct 1998 23:07:40 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: SM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I find it very difficult to read about torture or debasement, or about one partner inflicting pain upon another under the 'guise' of seeking sexual gratification. This is a prejudice of mine; I feel that in either role, 'top' (inflictor) or 'bottom' (inflictee) what's being played out are serious self-image problems, and their being allowed to be played out simply makes them stronger. And that's only when both adults are consenting. In reading fictions where the person who is being played did not ask for it, but finds she enjoys it on any level, I will immediately stop reading. However, to some degree, this distaste I have for SM lit. is not consistent with my personal experience. My first partner had been into SM in her relationships before me, and continued in SM after me. For our nine months together, the extent of my foray into SM was bondage. I enjoyed being tied up. I've always believed it's because I enjoyed being unable to act, and, therefore, absolved of responsibility (beyond that of allowing myself to be tied up). I also enjoyed the suspense of waiting to see what would be done to me. Granted, I felt completely safe with my partner. This is a very specific situation in which we were both where we wanted to be. Still, I wonder about the intensity of my gratification while in such situations. Why didn't it bother me to give up control and responsibility to someone else, even someone I trusted? And could I possibly have trusted her that completely? There must have been, I feel now, some sense of danger. And if I could enjoy that experience, and bring variations of it to future relationships, why is it so difficult for me to read about bondage or anything like it? Obviously, those are questions only I may be able to answer. I suspect that we hardly know why we enjoy real-life scenarios in which we ourselves may be subjugated, whether emotionally, physically, or psychologically. It's even more difficult to imagine why someone other than ourselves enjoys them. But as readers we probably all enjoy or appreciate scenarios we would never expect or ask for in our own lives. Of course, much of the fantastic literature we spend so much time reading depicts, by definition, unrealistic images. Still, we read them. As SF/F readers we don't confine our reading to subjects so realistic as to be considered "mundane". This could be why I find SM so difficult to read: because I know it's very much within my realm of possibilities. Just some thoughts. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 22:13:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Are there other lists? In-Reply-To: <12272b21.3634f031@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hiya, Your post got me to remember something. I do some critiquing for the Critters Workshop, and they have arranged their newsgroups by having two categories, one for writers and authors to discuss the current batch of work in the queue to be critiqed, and another group for everything else. Maybe the time has arrived to start one group for the "other" category where posts that would be off topic here would be welcome in the second list... That way, people who want to only discuss the current topic may do so in habitual peace and solitude, while the other list is for those who want to follow a thread, however small, to its natural conclusion without a moderator. Just a suggestion. And now I must go back to Grammar I have a midterm tomorrow afternoon grin. Onward! Jo Ann At 04:57 PM 10/26/98 EST, you wrote: >I agree about the purpose of this list being to discuss feminist aspects of >science fiction, fantasy and utopian literature, which is how I read the >purpose of this list. > >But is there a list to discuss feminist aspects of science fiction, fantasy >and utopian films, tv shows, music and other media? If not, is there someone >on this list who might start one? The truth is, I went so far as to prepare >posts on RoboCop and the sixties' TV show Bewitched, but never posted them >because I realized they were off-topic. But I think there's a lot to discuss >about such works (as well as more serious ones, like Gattaca or Bladerunner), >and I for one would love to have a vehicle for such discussions. > >Anny >AnnyMiddon@aol.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:43:08 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 26 Oct 98, at 17:41, Phoebe Wray wrote: > Mike says that heroines have to have "severe suffering" for success. > Hmmm... wonder if it isn't more that she we want to see her overcome, > shine through, pull up her socks, despite the "severe suffering." > I like to see women succeeding against the odds -- whatever they are. My point though is often the suffering is "self-inflicted" or at the very least avoidable. And (given a female author) the suffering may be endured by a *male* who succeeds against the odds. Take CJ Cherryh's books - for example _Tripoint_ and _Finity's end_ (both Merchanter novels): the respective male heros (Tom and Fletcher) behave for much of the time in a passive, self-doubting way worthy of a Harlequin heroine. I'm not saying passive heros don't feature in works by male authors (_Hamlet_ is for example) but they're almost never such wimps. In another list I'm on, we're debating the S/M element in the immensely popular pre-1965 Mills & Boon romance novels. For those of you who don't know, these are rather like Harlequin romances but in the period concerned sex was mentioned only in the most circumlocutory way and even a hint of (physical) arousal was a no-no. "...[A] high proportion of readers were (sic) not sloppy-minded juveniles nor unmarried old ladies, but reasonably well-educated, married women in the twenty-five to thirty-five age group, at home with children" (from Mann in Anderson 1974, p. 256-7). The storyline very often involves a woman tormented because and through her femaleness by a dominant, frequently aristocratic male. The torment - prolonged by the heroine's own actions - rises by fits and starts to reach a climax when the reason for the torment is revealed and true love (lubricated by the woman's forgiveness of her tormenter) reigns triumphant. The S/M storyline is clearly a metaphor for sex and _in my opinion_ the readers may well have enjoyed these books as vicarious compensation for the dismal sex lives that such women reputedly "enjoyed". So the books are highly sexual even though sex is never mentioned. It's easy to trace the descent of the current, somewhat ridiculous, "women's erotica" (exemplified by the _Black Lace_ series) from early romance novels. _In my opinion_ the sexual content in some of the books discussed in this forum has a similar lineage. Those who feel I'm exaggerating, should read E M Hull's 1919 _The sheik_. In its day (and later) it was enormously popular amongst women (and some men), but the S/M element (the repeated rapes of the heroine, Lady Hester Stanhope, for example) is so gross it makes me blench. The sadism in Ruasch's _Alien influences_, in Dorsey's _Black wine_ and - to a lesser extent - Atwood's _The handmaid's tale_ have similar effects. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 01:48:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: *An Exchange of Hostages* (was Fake/ In-Reply-To: <2077713@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >It's certainly struck me that women like heroes who suffer... mentally and >physically. I believe Dick Francis' thrillers are supposed to be more popular with women than men. The Bourne Idenity by Ludlum fits the bill. Handsome protagonist washes up on the beach. He's been shot and may have been in an explosion. Has amnesia. Thinks he may be an infamous assassin. Is forced to kidnap the beautiful and brainy economist (?) who comes to believe in him when he doesn't believe in himself. Richard Chamberlin in the excellent mini-series adaptation. > Also in Dorothy Dunnett's popular Lymond sequence, the hero gets a massive overload of suffering both physical and mental, under which he (mostly) bears up with courage, wit and aplomb. As they say in the organic shampoo commercials, "YES, YES, YES!" One of my favorite scenes: our rogue hero has played upon the sympathies of a sheltered young blind woman, who is eager for a little adventure and some Romance. After he is captured, he is heckled by the mob, and given the circumstances, he is having a pretty good time heckling them in return. Then the woman (her name was Christian?)appears. He knows that as soon as she hears his voice, she will try to come to his aid. Everyone will think the worst of her. So he falls silent, and the mob nearly kills him in an effort to make him cry out. Dunnett's women are all strong, resourceful characters, and Christian finally reviles him for a fool, because she had recognized his voice right from the beginning. But the scene that continues to haunt me is the chess game in the last book. The villain has set up a life and death game, and two toddlers are the pawns. One of the children belongs to Francis and one belongs to the villain. We know that one has been treasured and one has been horribly abused. And Francis has to decide which pawn to sacrifice in order to save everyone else. I'm still waiting for the day when Dunnett decides to tell us what became of the child that lived. I'm not sure why it is however: it is not always >about the romantic (or not _only_ romantic) hero. Torture became very important in the book I have been working on. It's the second book in a series. In the first book the narrator has been psychologically tortured by a man who is interested in her inheritance. Before he actually gets his hands on her, she abandons her inheritance and her old life and goes into exile. It's just there to help explain why she is such a mess. In the same book we have a man with block on his psychic abilities. He can only use power under dire physical threat, and then it's a berserker power. In book one we learn that he has been captured and tortured by a native tribe in the colony where he was stationed. He is friends with a woman who is going through her own crisis, and his injury brings them closer togther. Not a big issue. But suddenly in book two he is motivated to break the block on his psychic abilities. He has to accept the mutilation of his body before he can free his mind. And finally, in a crisis, he has to volunteer to be tortured in order to access his berserker power. This post is getting too long to actually go into the torture scene, which was gory and erotic. At the same time I discovered that the man who had psychologically tortured my heroine in the last book, has gone on to more gruesome deeds. In the two years since we have last seen him, he has started raping and murdering young women with psychic abilities. Those killings have been left strictly to the imagination. The hunters go off in the bushes to puke, and one gifted psychic has a seizure when he accidently touches a victim's grave. Since I did not intend to write either of these stories, I look upon them with wonder and try to analyze what the book is telling me. I beg pardon if I am boring anybody here, but it does make the connections clearer in my mind when I write them out like this. I should, I suppose, add that there is a third story line. In the first book we have a man who has raped his own daughter. Through the second book we watch him torture himself with guilt and wait to see if his daughter/granddaughter will carry out her threat to make mince meat of him. Perhaps if someone cares to ask about the different kinds of torture, we can come at this from a writer's perspective. --I can't say "feminist writer" because the characters are in charge and they are not all feminists. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:28:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis/FBN - Addendum MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >it appears she is concentrating on her own writing/playwriting and no >longer does the column for FBN. It also appears they never replaced her >column at my last glimpse of an FBN. Correction: (FSFFU goddess) Laura Quilter and Heather Whipple currently write the SFF column for FBN. (provided by S. Sturgis) FBN has a website ( http://www.FemBookNet.com ) but alas it is not have magazine content or review columns. It does have catalogues of book offerings from feminist bookstore in the states. Folks here will note there is not a category for SFF (????). Hmmmm. Donna ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:12:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: Animated sf In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII She is almost a feminist antihero. Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Marina wrote: > I watched the reruns of Aeon Flux a few days ago. IMHO, it's a very > interesting combination of Wonderwoman with Catwoman of sorts. On one > side, she's a "good" character, on the other -- far from being a saint. > Even though I did not like what they did to her in the last few episodes, > I still consider Aeon one of the most impressive images of a female hero. > What do you think of her? Anyone knows if they ever going to continue > that show? > > 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, 27 Oct 1998 08:27:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty Subject: Re: Request: I Who Have Never Known Men In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Thanks! I too wanted to read it again; it has a very distinct and beautiful tone of voice... JB On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Edythe Huffman wrote: > I read this book twice in the first two days after I checked it out. It > so impressed me that I then bought the book; something I do when I KNOW I > will reread something. > > The spirit of the narrator, who became a very compassionate and civilized > human being, is very compelling and inspirational. > > Consider, too, that it was written in French and translated into English; > very good work by author and translator. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hennepin County Library > Edythe Huffman ehuffman@sun.hennepin.lib.mn.us > Eden Prairie Library phone: 612-829-5460 > 479 Prairie Center Drive fax: 612-941-6035 > Eden Prairie, MN 55344 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:47:30 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis (was: magic realism) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Susanna's working on a novel on Cape Cod, and saving up to buy a Morgan horse. Marsha Valance Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53233-1436 "That All May Read!" My opinions are my own--the library wouldn't want them! >>> Jennifer Krauel 10/26 5:33 PM >>> At 07:10 AM 10/24/98 -0400, Donna Simone wrote: >... Which made me enjoy even more Susanna J. Sturgis' use of >the term when she edited her third collection of SFF stories, which did not use it to identify where the author was from or what >race they may be. ('Tales of Magic Realism by Women: Dreams in a Minor Key - Crossing Press '91) Her opening essay addresses the >use and origin of the term 'magic realism'. Thanks for reminding me about this book, Donna. I did read it when it came out and picked up a few new authors that have become favorites, such as Kathleen Alcala. I may have asked this question before, but a cursory net search just now doesn't answer it: What is Sturgis up to these days? I used to love her column on fantasy/sf in the Feminist Bookstore News and often wondered if it was possible to get it without subscribing to the whole magazine. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:50:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Books for discussions In-Reply-To: <001f01be00d2$ba6eac60$64b11b26@donna> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Could anyone please repost the books to be discussed in the new year. Thanks in advance. Bertina ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:03:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction [Was Re: *An Exchange ofHostages*] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (I'm assuming that when you assert that women "need" to read about suffering you mean that it's a need for sociological reasons rather than innate ones) When I was in my teens, I read quite a lot of books with male characters who suffer and bear up under it. On one level, I think I identified most strongly with male characters who suffered in a "feminine" manner (felt pain, were wildly unhappy, and so on) That is, I could mentally take on the "male" characteristics I desired--strength, ability to pilot space ships, witty urbanity and so forth--and still have the "feminine" charcteristics. (Not much feminist sf in my house at that age...) I also think that seeing a male character suffer and bear up was a way to think of suffering and bearing up and winning. Women in more conventional fiction don't get witty and charmingly pitiable when they suffer--they're either pathetic or totally destroyed. And they don't win, or not on their own. And also male suffering is culturally defined as more serious--and more imortant to fix--than women's. (imo) Men suffer because of political factionalism, or their beliefs, or the civil war, or layoffs at the plant. Women suffer because "women are always weaker", "women's lot is suffering", "no one is grateful to his mother:--abstractions that are framed as universal and unending. Who wouldn't want to identify with someone who suffers for a glorious, exciting reason and gets reknown and redress? I personally was reading those hurt-comfort books not because I wanted to comfort the hero, or feel needed by the hero, but because I wanted to BE the hero. But then, I also am very impressed by the idea in the Dispossessed that suffering is the most important universal theme or experience. >>> Mike Stanton 10/26 2:45 PM >>> On 25 Oct 98, at 19:13, Rebecca wrote: > I suspect that this was also part of the attraction of the original > "bodice-ripper" romances. The heroine is assaulted by the scary > hero. In this trial she finds confirmation of her womanhood, and > then she is held and comforted by the hero who is no longer so > scary. On 26 Oct 98, at 11:59, Anne Vespry wrote: > I think there may be some truth to your feminine vs masculine > writing torture theory. At any rate, your take on "/" fiction seems to fit my reading of it. > Interestingly those stories tend to be classified as "hurt comfort > stories" rather than as S/M stories. I think that the comments Anne and Rebecca have made about "bodice strippers" and "hurt comfort" stories have strong relevance for the enduring popularity of romance novels (such as the Harlequin series). More germane to this list, I think that the "hurt comfort" theme (in a much more sophisticated form than in Halequin books) is also a common theme in Feminist SF/F. At least some popular feminist SF (Shwartz's "Heirs to Byzantium" trilogy, some of Paula Volsky's work and at least 2 of the few MZB's books I've read come to mind immediately) appear to fall into the "hurt comfort" or even S/M (MZB's _The Mists of Avalon_ and _Lady of Avalon_) category. Nicola Griffith's _Slow River_ with its self-destructive heroine appears to also in spite of its lesbian storyline. When I first started reading feminist SF/F a couple of months ago, I was struck by the resemblance between some of the storylines and those described by Rachel Anderson (Anderson 1974) which seems to imply that the themes that sold/sell romance novels are also those that sell feminist SF?f. I hate to appear sexist, but I sometimes think that fiction aimed at women needs to contain severe suffering (particularly by the heroine) for it to be satisfying to its intended market. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ____________________________________________ Anderson, Rachel 1974. _The purple heart throbs : the sub-literature of love_. London : Hodder & Stoughton. 286p. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:13:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Request In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, J Bocchino/Sarasota Cty wrote: > > I am trying to locate a book I read about a year ago; I cannot remember > the author or the title (shame! and me a librarian) only that it was > translated from the French and involved a group of women who were kept in > an underground jail. The guards were male; at the end the guards > disappear, the women emerge and find that they are the only ones left on > the planet..they don't know where they are, how they got there, nor what > happened to their jailors. If anyone else is familiar with this book, I > would appreciate it... > Thanks. > I WHO HAVE NEVER KNOWN MEN. I don't remember the author.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 06:57:48 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 25 Oct 1998 to 26 Oct 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain ---- > >Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 11:36:16 -0600 >From: Jane Franklin >Subject: Re: Book of the New Sun > >I suppose what I mean is that I read a book for a number of reasons. I just don't like that stupid flood. I don't care if it's there for philosophically sound reasons, just as I don't care that Wolfe has sound reasons for incinerating the girl in the Death of Doctor Island. Part of me just doesn't like floods killing everybody and girls getting burned to death. > >Does this mean that I think Wolfe is a bad author or that I only want stories with fluffy bunnies? Not at all. Part of me likes the flood very much, because it fits with the story and is big and apocalyptic; it just wouldn't work if Utopia arrived on a plate. I admire BotNS tremendously and I'm always surprised at how few people I know who have read it. I admire Wolfe a lot, too, for literary reasons rather than sociological or political ones. > >I still don't think that BotNS is penetrating in a sociological sense, in the way that, say, alien influences might seek to be. I don't think Wolfe wants to explore specific social problems; even his treatment of Severian, the torturer, seems to me to use torture primarily as a metaphor rather than as a nuanced exploration of what torture does to the torturer. (And I don't think I'd find it very plausible if it did try to do this, given what I have learned from presentations from the Center for Victims of Torture which is affiliated with the University I attend.) I think Dorcas remarks somewhere about how all men are torturers. > >In so far as there's a sociology angle, it seems to be on the dehumanizing effects of a collapse into a kind of barbarism. No one is altruistic in the larger sense...Severian may let the lady in the Pelerine costume escape, but he doesn't have a larger social philosophy about letting all prisoners escape. But the book deals more in mythic terms with the human condition, rather than in nitty gritty political philosophy. Which was what I meant, although I expressed it poorly, by saying that I didn't think the book was culturally penetrating. Black Wine, for example, seems to have a more specific political agenda than does BotNS. > >On the one hand, not having a specific political agenda gives a book much more universal appeal and timelessness. On the other, it does reflect a certain kind of intellectual priviledge. Similarly to Robertson Davies, if you've ever read him--his characters are all rich, well-educated, strong-willed, and hence they all get on swimmingly with the business of thinking about the human condition. (I really like Robertson Davies, although I think his politics are deficient) Similarly, by doing away with real political ideology, Wolfe can write more clearly about what he sees as universal symbols. Which might be why we hear so little about Vodalus's ideas. We see a good deal of his army and hear a good deal of his plots, but we don't actually get much ideology. Severian admires him, but is more beglamoured by him than following a detailed set of beliefs. Ditto for the Ascians--we know a bit about their society, but although it's political commentary of a kind, Wolfe's writin! >g about them does not suggest a political strategy or a set of beliefs. He's really writing more about totalitarianism in general and the pressure toward social unity in general than about, say, China. But he is writing science fiction, yeah? I don't care much for SF which is *only* an allegory about, say, Chinese human rights abuses, or the Vietnam war, or whatever. FWIW, Wolfe has specifically denied that the Ascians (the humans who only speak in quotes from the Group of 13) are meant to be Chinese. I think there are a lot of correspondances between the battle scenes with the Ascians in BOTNS and the Korean War (which Wolfe fought in), but it does the books a disservice to say that they are "really" about the Korean War. This is sort of what I was trying to say before about Melissa Scott and no one seemed to understand. IMO, a political reference that is too easily decoded and which turns out to be a perfect allegory of some present-day political concern is distracting and detracts from my enjoyment of the book. Another example is in Ursula K. LeGuin. "The Word for World is Forest" has very obvious reflections of Vietnam, but it also stands on its own as an SF story. I thought some of her stories in _Four Ways to Forgiveness_ stepped over that line, and became narrowly political or didactic. A friend of mine called that book "Uncle Tom's Planet." >And again, I don't think that the book has a lot to say about feminism. The women characters are all pretty conventional in their gender roles, on the assumption, I suppose, that if we relapse into barbarism, women's rights will go. I buy that. But it's a pretty simple premise, true as it may be. My thing about BotNS is that just because something is relavent to metacultural analysis does not mean it is relevant to someone's specific concerns within the culture. That is, I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But that doesn't do more than contribute a little to a strategy for coping with Carol Mosely-Braun, a currently rather troubled Illinois senator. It does have the one female character who sacrifices her life and health in order to become impossibly beautiful. That's kinda feminist. Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:28:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 25 Oct 1998 to 26 Oct 1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>>But he is writing science fiction, yeah? I don't care much for SF which is *only* an allegory about, say, Chinese human rights abuses, or the Vietnam war, or whatever. FWIW, Wolfe has specifically denied that the Ascians (the humans who only speak in quotes from the Group of 13) are meant to be Chinese. I think there are a lot of correspondances between the battle scenes with the Ascians in BOTNS and the Korean War (which Wolfe fought in), but it does the books a disservice to say that they are "really" about the Korean War. I know that the Ascians were not meant to be Chinese or Asian or whatever in particular--that was the point I was trying to make. The thing is, a novel like the Dispossessed is specifically about politics (among other things) and political strategies. What are the results of non-violence? What does a good life for some mean for others? What can't a just society give its members? Can you defuse power forever? Although the novel does indeed stand on its own, it is "about" politics in a way that BotNS is not. I don't think that a novel conceived as an allegory for a political crisis is necessarily a bad novel--and what do we mean by bad, anyway? You might have a beautifully written novel by Robertson Davies that is classist and sexist in very painful ways. Reading it might be unpleasant, just as reading the clunky prose in Exchange of Hostages might be...but each of us might read those two novels and enjoy them enough for it to be worth the discomfort. >>It does have the one female character who sacrifices her life and health in order to become impossibly beautiful. That's kinda feminist. Well, I would definitely put that in the "Margaret Thatcher is a strong woman and she's feminist" school. I feel like the woman in BotNS is loses out because she's vain and naive and Dr. Talos is exploitive. To echo an earlier poster (who disagreed with me, in fact...see what a generous opponent I am? (ha ha...)) I think Wolfe has a lot more going on there than a simple comment on women's desire for beauty. Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:36:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: tanith lee / "/" and AEOH / MOCKINGBIRD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Well, I intended to lurk a while longer until I could read the assigned >books, but this one has sucked me out of the woodwork. _Don't Bite the >Sun_ and _Drinking Sapphire Wine_ are some of my favorite books of all >time. (Really, they appear to be one book split down the middle.) I agree. I read a great deal of Tanith Lee and am particularly found of those two. OTOH, while she has very strong female characters, I confess I don't necessarily think of her as feminist, for reasons I'm not sure I can define. And speaking of bad covers, we always call her BOOK OF THE BEAST the BOOK OF THE "BREAST" since it has a large gargoyle? with his face nuzzled into a woman's chest. The books are BEAST, DEAD, MAD and DAMNED (although not necessarily in that order). _____________ Anyone else struck by the pun in discussing the author of AN EXCHANGE OF HOSTAGES' "SM" fiction? ____________ Also am a fan of Sean Stewart's prose, and MOCKINGBIRD is one of my faves. Would recommend Bradley Denton's LUNATICS to folks who enjoy Texas Magic Realism. ____________ If anyone else is attending World Fantasy Con, please look me up. I'm sure to be sitting at my table for most of the weekend! 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, 27 Oct 1998 15:40:46 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: Tanith Lee MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I haven't read much Tanith Lee in the last decade. I did read Vivia for review for the Brum Group News. I didn't like it at all though I remember liking her when I was younger. Perhaps I'm just getting more sensitive in my old age. To save working any harder here's the review: I found this book fascinated me. This is not a compliment. On the front cover Tanith Lee is described as ^Ñthe undisputed queen of dark fantasy^Ò. So this is dark fantasy. It^Òs not to my taste. Almost inevitably the heroine is slender, beautiful and virginal. A dark fantasy (D.F.) heroine^Òs C.V. should include an eating disorder (anorexia for preference; bulimia is *so* messy) and long hair black as night. Blondes are inevitably in for a messy death, as are fat people. No need to take it personally though. Everyone but the heroine is in for a messy death and she^Ò s in for a long, hopeless and unpleasant life. Vivia is the daughter of Vaddix, a petty lord, brutal, violent, mad. The typical home-life, I would imagine, of a D.F. heroine. At the beginning of the book a squalid war is giving way to plague as the death of choice for the D.F ^Ñother characters^Ò. Plague is fascinating hence the popularity of such books as The Coming Plague. This novel generously gives you all the details that most books tastefully leave out. Vomit and pustules abound. Yummy. Vivia escapes this sordid death. She is seduced by a dark prince/god, becomes a vampire (no! really?) and waits around to be captured by Zulgaris, beautiful golden prince with the inevitable unsavoury habits. And so on. Lee has created a world to delight the eye. Her images are bright, vivid. Beauty is described in loving detail. Underneath, though, inside this gorgeous surface is corruption, desolation, ruin. An interesting PhD thesis could probably be written on the psychology of this worldview. As I said before, this book fascinated me. I was revolted by it but at the same time I was unable to put it down. It^Òs like eating chocolate (something a D.F. heroine wouldn^Òt do of course). You know it^Òs doing you no good, it makes you feel sick but you keep going anyway. Substitute your favourite ^Ñdrug^Ò if chocolate doesn^Òt affect you this way. I don^Òt usually read books to do me good. I do need to care about at least one character to make it worth reading a book. I didn^Òt care for any of them. Apparently neither did the blurb writer who doesn^Òt seem to have read the book. Technique: **** Content: * I've since been told that dark fantasy doesn't have to be this way. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:56:47 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 25 Oct 1998 to 26 Oct 1998 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel wrote (among many other things): >It does have the one female character who sacrifices her life and >health in order to become impossibly beautiful. That's kinda >feminist. In what way is it kinda feminist to sacrifice your life and health to become impossibly beautiful? Kinda stupid. Kinda predictable. The kinda thing women have been doing for years with diets, restictive clothing, dangerous cosmetics, silicone breast implants etc. I admit it is some years since I read the books so i've forgotten any details. Perhaps if impossibly beautiful was entirely on her terms and by her judgement there is some case for saying it's feminist but generally? I don't think so. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 17:32:17 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction [Was Re: *An Exchange of hostages] Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 27 Oct 98, at 8:03, Jane Franklin wrote: > (I'm assuming that when you assert that women "need" > to read about suffering you mean that it's a need > for sociological reasons rather than innate ones) I think you'll find that Michael (Stanton) didn't actually say anything about women's need(s). What he _said_ was "fiction aimed at women needs to contain severe suffering for it to be satisfying to its intended market". What he _meant_ was "a book must contain severe suffering before women will buy it in sufficient quantities to make it highly profitable". We're not talking "Mr Sensitivity" here; young Michael wouldn't know a "sociological woman's need" if it bit him on the butt. I should perhaps tell you that the content_analysis mailing list which Michael occasionally refers to is a list for business analysts / programmers using / modifying a text analysis program called "The Venerable Bede". To leaven technical discussions and provide a bit of light relief (like some of the OT on this list), we started a discussion years ago on writing a program which would permit publishers to pick real winners from their "slush piles". In spite of its dubious ancestry, the discussion has yielded some fascinating insights. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:38:56 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Tanith Lee Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>>>Almost inevitably the heroine is slender, beautiful and virginal. A dark fantasy (D.F.) heroine*s C.V. should include an eating disorder (anorexia for preference; bulimia is *so* messy) and long hair black as night. Blondes are inevitably in for a messy death, as are fat people. No need to take it personally though. Everyone but the heroine is in for a messy death and she's in for a long, hopeless and unpleasant life. This review is a stitch...it describes the worst of Tanith Lee perfectly. I'm reading one called A Heroine of the World right now--a cheap used copy--and it's abysmal. The main character hasn't really done anything and it's 2/3 through the book. She has, however, inherited an estate through improbable means in the barbaric north. And she's had some sex. However, some of Lee's short stories are pretty good, and the Book of the Mad is rather charming, and I liked Delirium's Mistress in a gaudy way. I suppose I asked this question because I wanted to see if people thought of Lee as a feminist. I don't, personally. She eroticizes passivity, her heroines are all the aforementioned skinny girls (although HotW does feature a blond), and her notions of sex are well, odd. Also , she's something of an essentialist. The gender of her characters may be fluid, but once they've settled on a gender, they're pretty much stuck with a limited set of characteristics. What is it about her that she gets stuck with such tawdry cover illustrations? I am positively embarassed to check her books out of the library, less for the content than for the cover. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:52:45 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: author's intentionality Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The question of how much any reader can point to a text and say, with authority, that "X was the writer's intention" is a hot debate in literary studies (I've been involved wiht lit studies for a couple of decades by now, so have seen the shift from "new criticism" or "structuralism" where the ONLY permissible evidence was the text and where the understated purpose seemed to be to deduce the writer's true intention--if the writer was producing High Literature--to the large variety of theories out there these days that range from reader response--that the reader makes the meaning of a text through interaction between what is in a text and what is their own experience, through new historicism--cultural context--through a wide degrees of feminist and gender issues and on and on.). There's a little story I've heard for years that sums it up though: Browning was going into dinner, and a Lady asked him what the meaning of one of his poems was. He said: "Madame, when I wrote that poem, only God and I knew. Now, only God knows." There have been several times where a writer on this list responded to comments by saying "that's not what I intended...." And the comments ranged widely. I teach creative writing, and I also write poetry and fiction, as well as scholarly work. And please let me tell you that there's nothing like workshoppping to show that it is almost impossible for a writer to intend some specific meaning and get it through to all people, for various reasons. One of the most important reasons is that language is not a simple tool. Words do not mean the same thing to everyone--there are denotations (dictionary definitions) and then there are connotations (our own associations). Add in the widely multi-cultural literatures of a global economy, and it gets even more confusing. Add in the fact that writers "lie" (in the sense of make fictions, and their own interpretations), and the fact that writers change over time (who can remember what they "intended" ten years ago?), and the whole issue of intentionality becomes fraught with danger. (And why should anyone assume that something as multi-facteted as a literary work has a single intention behind it anyway?) If it was ever so simple to declare what a writer intended as the SOLE meaning of a literary work, then there wouldn't be 10,000 essays on Shakespeare's plays. A graduate professor once gave our class a great assignment--we had to research the critical responses to a single author or work over at least 200 years. I learned that literary criticism says as much about the critic's individual and cultural situation as it does about the "topic," and after that assignment I gave up on any fantasy of a single critical stance that is "correct." (Plus, there's a long history of writers totally rejecting what a bunch of critics say about their work--and vice versa.) That said, not even reader response claims that there are infinite interpretations of a literary work--just a range. This issue is especially intense when considering work labeled "feminist," whether or not the authors have declared themselves to be writing feminism in a media culture in which feminism is regularly blamed for everything from rape to AIDS to world pollution.... Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:01:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: Books for discussions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:50 AM 10/27/98 -0500, Bertina wrote: >Could anyone please repost the books to be discussed in the new year. > >Thanks in advance. Here are the upcoming books plus the date discussion begins: November 2 The Snow Queen, by Joan D. Vinge December 7 The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell January 4 Brown Girl in the Ring, by Nalo Hopkinson February 1 The Female Man, by Joanna Russ March 1 A Fisherman of the Inland Sea, by Ursula K. LeGuin April 5 Jaran, by Kate Elliot ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:04:46 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Komarr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've just read Komarr as light relief after four books to review. I really loved it. I admit I was concerned after Miles lost the merceneries in Memory. I thought, dreadful thought, that that might be the end of Miles Vorkosigan, hero. Not so, thank goodness. Detective novels take over from military novels. To be honest, Miles is such a great character I'd probably read the Miles Vorkosigan Cookbook. Another thing I liked was Ekaterin Vorsoissin (sp?). Feminist SF and fantasy abounds with strong women who have taken the virginal warrior route to heroism (eg Paksenarrion in Oath of Gold or Ellie Quinn and Elena Bothari Jesek in the Barrayar books though the latter are not virginal) but very few wives and mothers who make it. Ekaterin is brave, strong and suffers all the doubts I fight with. I really hope Bujold is working on the next and the next books. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:29:15 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: Scarborough's _Healer's War_ (was magical realism) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I want to highly recommend Scarborough's _Healer's War_ and the two books that follows (not a sequel in the sense of following up with the same character, but books on issues of women and war that I found incredible--also one that plays off of _Shangri-La_ and shows Scarborough's increasing interest in Buddhist philosophy). I taught HW in a "science fiction" class as the 'last book' to raise questions about genre definitions--and boy did I get trashed! (Mostly, by the guys in class--one of whom wrote in an evaluation: "What do women have to do with science fiction, anyway?") I think people could argue the novel is fantasy, or speculative fiction, or fantastic literature--and maybe magical realism. (Genre terms are not set in concrete) Scarborough did serve as a nurse in Viet Nam, and she has spoken and written about how long it took her to write that novel (and how long it's taken for America to recognize the women who served in Viet Nam). I find it fascinating how her earlier "lighter" fantasies (which I still consider femininst) contrast with her later work. In fact, I highly recommend all Scarborough's novels (well, I find the GOLD CAMP VAMPIRE and DRASTIC DRAGON to be less appealing than the others). Sorry I cannot recall any titles off hand--if you want a list, email me and I'll go through my shelves at home. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:15:49 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Ursula Le Guin and Politics MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel Krashin wrote: > IMO, a political reference that is > too easily decoded and which turns out to be a perfect allegory of > some present-day political concern is distracting and detracts from > my enjoyment of the book. > > Another example is in Ursula K. LeGuin. "The Word for World is > Forest" has very obvious reflections of Vietnam, but it also stands on > its own as an SF story. I thought some of her stories in _Four Ways > to Forgiveness_ stepped over that line, and became narrowly > political or didactic. A friend of mine called that book "Uncle > Tom's Planet." Interesting that you chose these examples. I could say the same except I would REVERSE them. "The Word for World Is Forest" is one of my least favorite Le Guin books precisely because it was so obviously based on a particular war, and because the villain was so cartoonishly bad. The stories in *Four Ways to Forgiveness* seemed much less narrowly based on individual historical events and the characters were far better developed. As time goes on I think Le Guin is becoming better at portraying the variety of humanity and less prone to polemics. But some people, reacting to her growing awareness of and engagement with issues of sexism, racism, sexual orientation, have branded her as narrow and "politically correct". Funny how even noticing that such things exist in our society makes a person "political" in some other people's eyes... These latter comments are not directed at you personally, Daniel. You just got me thinking about various criticisms of Le Guin I've read in Usenet & elsewhere. In his collection *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, Thomas M. Disch wrote a bizarrely vitriolic essay about feminist science fiction that spends much of its length dumping on Le Guin for her choices of what to include in the *Norton Book of SF*. (According to him, her selections were based on ideology, not literary merit.) Perhaps there is something about her style that presses people's buttons. Personally, I think her stories of the last five years show her at or near the top of her form. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Elliott Smith -- either/or "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:03:36 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: your mail Comments: To: Cathie Miller In-Reply-To: <3633ED1F.7F76@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII And, yes, I am not including a reference in the title now on purpose :) to show you what I mean Bonnie On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Cathie Miller wrote: > Madrone; > > Point taken. > > Chris > > > In a message dated 10/25/98 6:18:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, > camiller@gte.net > writes: > > << But I don't think it's necessary for > anyone else to carry her banner for her. >> > > > Gee. Thanks, Chris. Whatever would I do without you to direct my > activities? > By the way, as you may not have noticed, my comments include more than > just Marina. > > Madrone > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:02:25 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: your mail Comments: To: Cathie Miller In-Reply-To: <3633ED1F.7F76@gte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I hate to be a stickler, but please be sure and include some reference to the listserv in the title, or at least something more descriptive than "your mail". Being able to read the posts as I can, and delete them and read them later as needed (ie, when I am busy) is the only thing that keeps me on the list. Thanks, Bonnie On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Cathie Miller wrote: > Madrone; > > Point taken. > > Chris > > > In a message dated 10/25/98 6:18:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, > camiller@gte.net > writes: > > << But I don't think it's necessary for > anyone else to carry her banner for her. >> > > > Gee. Thanks, Chris. Whatever would I do without you to direct my > activities? > By the way, as you may not have noticed, my comments include more than > just Marina. > > Madrone > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:33:46 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: Animated sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Marina wrote: <> Never heard of it. This sounds interesting. What network, time, etc.? Mary-Ellen Maynard Crystal Mist Glass Carving ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:53:17 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 27 Oct 98, at 17:32, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > We're not talking "Mr Sensitivity" here; young Michael > wouldn't know a "sociological woman's need" if it bit > him on the butt. I resent that. Seriously though the sneer implicit in your "a book must contain severe suffering before women will buy it in sufficient quantities to make it highly profitable" is misdirected. The amount of money that a book or category of book makes is unarguably the best measure of _society's_ judgment of that book or book category. You are once again confusing the concepts of "worth" and "value". No one knows what the "worth" or "merit" of a book is; "worth" or "merit" involves a subjective judgment because there is no absolute standard - that's been the subject of many comments in this forum. "Value" on the other hand is simply and easily measured. It's the amount of money that the end readers have/are prepared to pay for a book. By that criterion, most - possible almost all - of Stephen King's works are of far greater "value" than the best selling work of a feminist writer like, for example, Ursula Le Guin. It's unfortunate but right that it should be so because whatever an author's intentionality (to quote Robin Reid) in what she says, her intention in writing the book was to make money. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _______________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:03:50 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: Re: references MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I see your point. I read everything, so I rarely look at the subject line. I'll try to be more aware of this. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 13:12:03 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: eva Subject: Re: Animated sf In-Reply-To: <617ddea1.36362e2a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Mary-Ellen Maynard wrote: ["aeon flux"] > Never heard of it. This sounds interesting. What network, time, etc.? it was a series on MTV a few years ago. it started as a recurring short on their animation anthology series, "liquid television," in 1991. i don't think it's on any more (at least not in the US), but you can still find a few web pages with pictures, episode info, etc. personally, i liked it, but i tend to agree that aeon was something of a feminist antihero. -> eva ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:58:20 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis (was: magic realism) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/27/98 1:49:29 PM, Marsha wrote: <> Ahhh lucky lady. Magnificent creatures, Morgans. phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:09:16 -0500 Reply-To: Lilith Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] "Hurt comfort" fiction >whatever an author's intentionality (to quote Robin Reid) in what >she says, her intention in writing the book was to make money. > > >Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) >_______________________________________ > Hmm. No - Actually, I would say that it would more accurate to describe an author's intention for writing a book is to _finish_ it. An author _publishes_ (or seeks to) her book in order to make money (or attempt to). After all, there have been many author's whose works have been published posthumously (because they apparently wrote only for themselves - journals and letters for instance, as well as some novels and other works) or else only published after the urgings of other people who convinced the author that his/her work would be found desirable by the public. Lilith Sorry if this comes to the list looking funky - I'm using Outlook Express, the latest version of Communicator was so buggy I had to uninstall it. ******************************************** ************Hell's Half Acre************** *http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia* ******************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 16:30:53 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 19:12 26/10/98 +0000, you wrote: >Perhaps I'm just being dense here: I still don't think you're addressing the >issue of _fiction_, in whatever form. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com I guess the point is that a lot of what is considered science fiction is actually closer to reality than we care to think. Look at cyborgs and robots in popular sci fi and culture.... aren't we taking the first steps towards this with VR, machanical implants in the human body etc ... So when I talk about feminist sci fi and cyberpunk its got nothing to do with novels Im actually looking at real social issues. Others are not and thats fine. But I do think there is room for both here. They only add to one another they shouldn't compete. ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 23:34:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Komarr In-Reply-To: <000401be01d4$62f6f980$01035cc3@softnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Yvonne Rowse wrote: > I've just read Komarr as light relief after four books to review. I really > loved it. I admit I was concerned after Miles lost the merceneries in > Memory. I thought, dreadful thought, that that might be the end of Miles > Vorkosigan, hero. Not so, thank goodness. Detective novels take over from > military novels. To be honest, Miles is such a great character I'd probably > read the Miles Vorkosigan Cookbook. > > Another thing I liked was Ekaterin Vorsoissin (sp?). Feminist SF and fantasy > abounds with strong women who have taken the virginal warrior route to > heroism (eg Paksenarrion in Oath of Gold or Ellie Quinn and Elena Bothari > Jesek in the Barrayar books though the latter are not virginal) but very few > wives and mothers who make it. Ekaterin is brave, strong and suffers all the > doubts I fight with. > > I really hope Bujold is working on the next and the next books. > > Yvonne > There's a funny story connected with Komarr which Bujold told me last year over dinner at Minicon. Notice the cover of the book, the two big heads staring at each other as equals. That ain't the original cover painting. In the original, Ekaterin was much smaller and located below Miles and to the left, looking up at him with undisguised admiration. Bujold, who created Ekaterin with the specific intent of coming up with a woman who is Miles' equal, was outraged by the cover and had a snit over the phone at Jim Baen her publisher. Baen insisted that they couldn't simply junk the offensive cover because it was already paid for and besides there wasn't time to do a new cover from scratch. Still when you're a publisher's biggest bestselling author, as Bujold is, you've got a certain amount of power. As a compromise, the artist took the original painting back and painted over the small, meek Ekaterin, creating the big facial close up to hide the offending image. Bujold still doesn't much like the cover, but at least it isn't sexist. And yes, she is working on the sequel to Komarr. It should be out next summer. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:02:41 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: Komarr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mike You wrote: >There's a funny story connected with Komarr which Bujold told me last >year over dinner at Minicon. > >Notice the cover of the book, the two big heads staring at each other as >equals. That ain't the original cover painting. In the original, Ekaterin >was much smaller and located below Miles and to the left, looking up at him >with undisguised admiration. Bujold, who created Ekaterin with the specific >intent of coming up with a woman who is Miles' equal, was outraged by the cover >and had a snit over the phone at Jim Baen her publisher. Baen insisted that >they couldn't simply junk the offensive cover because it was already paid >for and besides there wasn't time to do a new cover from scratch. Still >when you're a publisher's biggest bestselling author, as Bujold is, >you've got a certain amount of power. As a compromise, the artist took the >original painting back and painted over the small, meek Ekaterin, creating the >big facial close up to hide the offending image. > >Bujold still doesn't much like the cover, but at least it isn't sexist. Sadly I've got the UK edition published by Earthlight because it was the only edition in Andromeda. All my other Bujold stuff is Baen. The cover to this is almost as irritating. I presume the young blond & cute guy wearing the breathing mask and holding a gun on the cover is supposed to be Miles. What the shiny yellow shoulder pads and insignia mean is anyone's guess. This cover is surely on a par with the one for the UK edition of Rite of Passage which showed Mia Havero, explicitly small and dark in the book portrayed as a tall blond with long hair and well built. >And yes, she is working on the sequel to Komarr. It should be out next >summer. > Oh good. Yvonne > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:15:16 -0800 Reply-To: sam@deepforest.org Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Silver Maple Organization: Spiral Sprouts Subject: Self-introduction (Sam) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello, everyone. I'm Samara S. Maple, aka Sam, a feminist and a science fiction fan. I've been reading since I was three (my mother taught me, using comic books). By the time I was twelve, I had finished the Harvard Classics series and the other adult literature in the house, so I headed to the libraries for more. No book was ever withheld from me as unsuitable, but I did get into a little trouble for sneaking into my dad's room to get at his science fiction and fantasy books and magazines when I was about 9. He wasn't mad about my reading the books, he said, he would give me anything I asked for: I just wasn't supposed to sneak into his room when he wasn't there. My dad also gave me a copy of _Age of Reason_ by Thomas Paine, which began my career as an agnostic. I'm 48, and I teach English to speakers of other languages for my living. My academic career was interrupted by my desire to travel and, later, by ten years of life in an ashram. Returning to college, I earned my BA in Linguistics, summa cum laude, and my undergrad certificate in TESOL, from San Jose State University in 1996, where I also served a term as president of the student linguistics society. Academentia exasperates me, and I'm older than the cut-off age for many grad programs and grants, so for now I'm choosing to continue my education independently, in university and public libraries and on the Net. Some authors whose works I always enjoy are Gertrude Stein, Virginia Woolf, Ursula Leguin, and James Tiptree, Jr. I often like books by Joanna Russ, Kurt Vonnegut, Robert Anton Wilson, Fred Saberhagen, and Tanya Huff. I usually like at least something about most other books, and dislike very few. I write for pleasure and reflection, but have no plans to publish. I have attended Worldcons in Baltimore, Brighton, and San Francisco. I've been to Baycon in San Jose, Pantheacon in Oakland and San Francisco, Potlatch in Oakland, Westercon in Portland, Philcon in Philadelphia, and Ad Astra in Toronto. Every year I spend a week at Camp Winnarainbow and a week at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. I love filksings so long as they are not too "ose" (Frank Hayes and Dr. Jane are my favorites). I have been lurking for a while, and have enjoyed all the posts. You seem (mostly) to be able to avoid flaming, which is refreshing. I look forward to continuing to lurk and occasionally to post to the list. Thanks to all for being here. Sam sam@deepforest.org ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:15:16 -0800 Reply-To: sam@deepforest.org Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Silver Maple Organization: Spiral Sprouts Subject: Re: Ursula Le Guin and Politics In-Reply-To: <36360DD5.1BB60950@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, this is Sam, and this is my first post here. I've been lurking for some months, and I'm posting a separate self-intro. Daniel Krashin wrote: > > IMO, a political reference that is > > too easily decoded and which turns out to be a perfect allegory of > > some present-day political concern is distracting and detracts from > > my enjoyment of the book. To which Janice E. Dawley replied, in part (and not directed at Daniel): > Funny how even noticing that such things exist in > our society makes a person "political" in some other people's eyes... > > These latter comments are not directed at you personally, Daniel. You > just got me thinking about various criticisms of Le Guin I've read in > Usenet & elsewhere. (an example of some vehement criticism followed.) I've been reading science fiction since 1956, when I first started sneaking into my dad's room and reading his books and magazines. I became accustomed to hearing the argument that science fiction was nothing but power and masturbation fantasy for nerdy engineers, that it was not "real" literature (whatever that was), but merely thrown-together space opera. The counter argument, which I heard and believed, was that science fiction was actually a form of thought experiment, just like the ones used in physics. The thought experiments of science fiction were considered to gain literary merit by using ideas not only from "hard" science but also from "soft" scientific disciplines (sociology, politics, anthropology, psychology, etc.) to create coherent, believable, and beautiful worlds. This was also used as an argument for the merit of utopian and fantasy fiction. This ought to be a separate issue from the issue of whether or not the author is too heavy-handed, or unskillful, in using things from this world to generate things from other worlds. In my opinion, Ursula Leguin is one of the most skillful authors in this area. _Left Hand of Darkness_, _Always Coming Home_, and _Tehanu_ spring to mind. A completely separate issue is whether or not the things that the author chooses to use are themselves things we would rather not look at, either in fiction or in reality, and therefore provide a reason for us not to like that book or author. That would go far in explanation of the vehemence of some of the criticism, perhaps, as well as the devotion of some of the fans, including me. I've been enjoying all of your posts, btw, and will return to lurk mode now. Sorry for the length of this... Samara sam@deepforest.org ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:43:11 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Greed as a motive for writing Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 27 Oct 98, at 22:09, Lilith wrote: > Hmm. No - Actually, I would say that it would more > accurate to describe an author's intention for > writing a book is to _finish_ it. An author > _publishes_ (or seeks to) her book in order to > make money (or attempt to). You're right in the broad sense of course, but I think the context of my note makes it clear that I was considering only books _written and published_. Anyway can one in today's terms _really_ count anything unpublished as a book? One can call it a manuscript, a typescript or (in my case) a grubby beer-stained printout - but surely not a book? > After all, there have been many author's whose works > have been published posthumously (because they > apparently wrote only for themselves - journals > and letters for instance, as well as some novels and > other works) or else only published after the urgings > of other people who convinced the author > that his/her work would be found desirable by the public. Again true, but I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people who write "books" do so in the fervent hope that they'll be able to get them published. And every author I've spoken to has admitted that everytime he/she has a book published, he/she prays it'll make a fortune. And let me make another outrageous statement. The vast majority of authors, regardless of artistic inclination, would do _anything_ - upto and including human sacrifice - if they thought it would make their books bestsellers. One can never overestimate greed as a motivator! Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) _________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:13:20 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Ursula Le Guin and Politics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> "Janice E. Dawley" 10/27 12:15 PM >>> In his collection *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, Thomas M. Disch wrote a bizarrely vitriolic essay about feminist science fiction that spends much of its length dumping on Le Guin for her choices of what to include in the *Norton Book of SF*. (According to him, her selections were based on ideology, not literary merit.) Perhaps there is something about her style that presses people's buttons. Personally, I think her stories of the last five years show her at or near the top of her form. I've been hoping someone would bring up the Norton anthology! Sadly, I gave my copy away when I was in China, but it was easily the best sf anthology I had ever read--hardly a clunker in the bunch. I was disturbed, though, by one of the last stories--the one by Bruce Sterling where the duplicious Arab assasinates the heroic American and sacrifices his own life to do so. It was a good story in many ways, but I was uncomfortable with it because I thought it played off stereotypes of Arabs. Did anyone else read it, and was it just me who thought this? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:47:03 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: The Dreams Our Stuff. . . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >In his collection *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, >Thomas M. Disch wrote a bizarrely vitriolic essay about feminist science >fiction that spends much of its length dumping on Le Guin for her >choices of what to include in the *Norton Book of SF*. (According to >him, her selections were based on ideology, not literary merit.) >Janice E. Dawley Has anyone else looked this book over? I have a chance to buy it in the next couple days for 30% off and have given it a quick look. _Locus_ tore it to shreds in their review, but they often like to reassert their role as guardian of the tower, so I wasn't sure how to take that. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:56:57 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Excuse me? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:30 PM 10/28/98 +1100, you wrote: >At 19:12 26/10/98 +0000, you wrote: >>Perhaps I'm just being dense here: I still don't think you're addressing the >>issue of _fiction_, in whatever form. >>Lesley >>Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but "fiction" doesn't mean just written media. "Literature," however, generally does. At least that's what dictionary.com says. Of course, this just helps Lesley's point, since the title of this listserv does NOT contain the word "fiction," but rather "literature." Joe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:56:09 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: Susanna Sturgis (was: magic realism) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks, Phoebe. I can't help but agree, as I've been breeding them for 10 years. Marsha Valance Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53233-1436 "That All May Read!" My opinions are my own--the library wouldn't want them! >>> Phoebe Wray 10/27 5:58 PM >>> In a message dated 10/27/98 1:49:29 PM, Marsha wrote: <> Ahhh lucky lady. Magnificent creatures, Morgans. phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:07:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Komarr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>And yes, she is working on the sequel to Komarr. It should be out next >>summer. >> >Oh good. > >Yvonne >> > Okay, this post goes under the heading of "please teach me, I really want to understand." Two summers ago I went on a quest to read all the "classic" works of general speculative fiction, just so I could get the references and stop being embarrassed by saying, "Um, no, I haven't read that." One of the names I saw recurrently on recommended lists was Bujold's, so I looked up which one of her most-recommended titles was at my library. The one I found, I think, was _The Vor Game_ (it's about Miles saving the. . .Emporer. . .and meeting a lovely woman who has kidnapped him. . .what else. . oh, I think Miles is serving duty on some hole in the wall planet at the beginning, where he finds a dead body in the sewage? It's really cold planet, I think. . . .). In short, I hated it. I was irritated that I had wasted my time reading such a completely within-the-envelope novel when I could have been reading something like one of Le Guin's more obscure novels or even just the next Ender book. I found the book well-paced, full of adequate to good characterization, and with little else to recommend it. The male-female relationships had been done in a more interesting tone in Harrison's early Rat novellas. The detective story had been done better in Willis's stories. Even David Brin's science was more convincing than the science in that book. So what was I missing? Did I just pick a bad book? (I think it won multiple awards, though. . .that was one of the criteria I had for which books I read that summer.) I just wrote her off as a fad that had somehow wormed its way onto the award lists, but everyone keeps talking about her, and even _Locus_ (see my previous post for thoughts on their reviews) cooed over her latest Miles book. Help me! I want to be in with the in crowd! Joe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:07:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: while I'm gone Comments: cc: Science Fiction and Fantasy Listserv Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Am going to be gone for 6 days, but not setting my account to NO MAIL. My server assures me that my "vacation" message will not bounce back digests or otherwise mess us list serves. I trust this is correct. Off to World Fantasy Con! Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:45:17 -0500 Reply-To: kamholse@fuse.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Re: Request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I WHO HAVE NEVER KNOW MEN is by Jacqueline Harpman (Avon Books) and is in the stack I haven't gotten to yet. The stack is taking over my house. Sally Kamholtz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:14:18 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 09:28:57 -0600 From: Jane Franklin Dan Krashin said: >>>>But he is writing science fiction, yeah? I don't care much for SF which is *only* an allegory about, say, Chinese human rights abuses, or the Vietnam war, or whatever. FWIW, Wolfe has specifically denied that the Ascians (the humans who only speak in quotes from the Group of 13) are meant to be Chinese. I think there are a lot of correspondances between the battle scenes with the Ascians in BOTNS and the Korean War (which Wolfe fought in), but it does the books a disservice to say that they are "really" about the Korean War. >>>I know that the Ascians were not meant to be Chinese or Asian or whatever in particular--that was the point I was trying to make. The thing is, a novel like the Dispossessed is specifically about politics (among other things) and political strategies. What are the results of non-violence? What does a good life for some mean for others? What can't a just society give its members? Can you defuse power forever? Although the novel does indeed stand on its own, it is "about" politics in a way that BotNS is not. I don't think that a novel conceived as an allegory for a political crisis is necessarily a bad novel--and what do we mean by bad, anyway? You might have a beautifully written novel by Robertson Davies that is classist and sexist in very painful ways. Reading it might be unpleasant, just as reading the clunky prose in Exchange of Hostages might be...but each of us might read those two novels and enjoy them enough for it to be worth the discomfort. OK, I get you. BotNS is not "about" politics in the way that _Dispossessed_, or _Primary Colors_ is. But it does address a lot of issues of power and justice, though in the typical Wolfean slant where you don't really get it until you reread it. I wish someone would spend five years or so writing a BotNS concordance, BTW, explaining all the cross-references and hidden easter eggs that Wolfe packed into those books. I never said narrow political allegories were bad, actually -- I said I didn't care for them. I can only think of one I really liked, _The Unconquered Country_ by Geoff Ryman, which was a transparent science-fantasy allegory of the tragedy of Kampuchea/Cambodia. I liked it, but I would have liked it even more if had stood on its own a bit more... I wish he'd revisit the world of _Country_, although it would probably be painful since things in that part of our world have continued to be terrible. >>It does have the one female character who sacrifices her life and health in order to become impossibly beautiful. That's kinda feminist. >>>Well, I would definitely put that in the "Margaret Thatcher is a strong woman and she's feminist" school. I feel like the woman in BotNS is loses out because she's vain and naive and Dr. Talos is exploitive. To echo an earlier poster (who disagreed with me, in fact...see what a generous opponent I am? (ha ha...)) I think Wolfe has a lot more going on there than a simple comment on women's desire for beauty. Well, of course. But Wolfe is addressing a feminist theme, no? >From: Anthea Hartley Stanton >Subject: Re: "Hurt comfort" fiction [Was Re: *An Exchange of hostages] >>On 27 Oct 98, at 8:03, Jane Franklin wrote: >> (I'm assuming that when you assert that women "need" >> to read about suffering you mean that it's a need >> for sociological reasons rather than innate ones) >I think you'll find that Michael (Stanton) didn't actually say anything >about women's need(s). What he _said_ was "fiction aimed at women needs >to contain severe suffering for it to be satisfying to its intended >market". What he _meant_ was "a book must contain severe suffering >before women will buy it in >sufficient quantities to make it highly >profitable". >We're not talking "Mr Sensitivity" here; young Michael wouldn't know a >"sociological woman's need" if it bit him on the butt. I thought Michael Stanton was talking about the publishing market. Generalizing from the market to sociology is another, riskier jump. Publishers make a living from selling books that people want to buy; it is possible that they may know something about the market :) >From: "Janice E. Dawley" >Subject: Ursula Le Guin and Politics >Daniel Krashin wrote: >> IMO, a political reference that is >> too easily decoded and which turns out to be a perfect allegory of >> some present-day political concern is distracting and detracts from >> my enjoyment of the book. [snip of discussion of "Forest" and "Four Ways"] >These latter comments are not directed at you personally, Daniel. You >just got me thinking about various criticisms of Le Guin I've read in >Usenet & elsewhere. In his collection *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, >Thomas M. Disch wrote a bizarrely vitriolic essay about feminist science >fiction that spends much of its length dumping on Le Guin for her >choices of what to include in the *Norton Book of SF*. (According to >him, her selections were based on ideology, not literary merit.) Perhaps >there is something about her style that presses people's buttons. >Personally, I think her stories of the last five years show her at or >near the top of her form. I'm looking forward to reading Disch's new book, although it seems to have something for everybody to hate... I kinda know what he means about the Norton Book of SF, though -- I would not say the selection is bad, but I thought it was strikingly unrepresentative of the SF field as a whole. I thought a more accurate title might have been, "Norton Book of Postmodern Science Fiction". As such, it's actually more valuable to me than just another canonical anthology of the Usual Suspects would be. But it seemed (I didn't go through and tally up stories, this is just my impression) definitely slanted towards the post-New Wave, post-modern, feminist, meta-fictional, and political type of story. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts about the anthology, I don't read much SF criticism other than the New York Review of SF, so what I'm saying may be common knowledge. Danny -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:31:07 +0100 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand ------------Forwarded message---------------- From: "Chris Sciabarra" Subject: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 12:26:00 -0500 It gives me great pleasure to provide information on a fascinating new book dealing with Ayn Rand. On February 2, 1999, on the 94th anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth, Penn State Press will release a landmark anthology, co-edited by Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (me), entitled: FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND Those interested in finding out more about the volume's featured essays and its list of internationally known contributors should point their browsers to: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/femstart.htm The site is connected to my own totally reconstructed "Dialectics and Liberty Site" at: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra The Feminist book is part of the Penn State Press series, "Re-Reading the Canon." Recent and forthcoming volumes in the series include those devoted to Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Descartes. The inclusion of Rand in this series should erase any doubts that her work is legitimate and worthy of engagement, examination, and critique. Thanks for your attention. Chris Sciabarra ====================================================== Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Visiting Scholar Faculty of Arts and Science New York University Department of Politics 715 Broadway New York, New York 10003-6806 Email: cms10@is2.nyu.edu Dialectics and Liberty Site: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND Forthcoming from Penn State Press On the 94th anniversary of Rand's Birth - Feb. 2, 1999: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/femstart.htm ====================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:47:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch To me, saying that Wolfe addresses a feminist theme because he depicts a woman who dies to be beautiful is akin to saying that any story which talks about women and beauty is feminist--that is, it broadens the term nearly to uselessness. What happens to this woman? She's vain and poor, so she lets Dr. Talos make her beautiful and use her in his play, probably without really understanding what the price is. She continues to be vain and horrid until she dies of blood loss. When she's beautiful she can't walk or work, unlike many of the other beautiful women in the novel. You could read this so many ways: don't aspire above your station (which fits in with a TV interview a friend (who will be joining the list in the next couple days, I'll ask him to post his opinion) saw about Wolfe and Wolfe's Catholoicism). Women who want to be beautiful deserve to be punished/ are stupid. The things of the flesh are ephemeral. Really truly poor women can't be beautiful (she's one of the few wage laborer women in the book) Are any of these correct? I would argue that there's elements of all of them in the book. (Try comparing Jolanta with the armigette that Severian spares--same themes) But that would be oversimplifying. I'd also like to point out that women suffering for their quest for beauty is a VERY old theme, and can be handled in a quite conservative way. Also, how about that China Mountain Zhuang, a book I wanted to like but couldn't. I felt really bad about how the ugly girl--who was depicted as a rather difficult person--saved up to get surgery to be beautiful--like everyone else in the book did--only to be raped allegedly because she was so beautiful. The treatment of her in the book reminded me of Jolenta's treatment in Wolfe. And I'd like to add that one can have respect for individual women or even for women in general, without being per se a feminist...That's where I'd put Wolfe, which leads into another point about political books. Let's take Kant. Kant is a very fine philosopher, and his Critique of Reason I am particularly fond of, although I do not pretend to understand it completely. From this critique, one can draw some political principles. However, to say that it's a political book, or to claim that it holds all the wisdom of the ages in political terms, or even that it is more useful to an organizer than say a bound set of the past ten years' Labor Notes, well, that's kind of silly. And it's not better than Labor Notes--speaking generally--it's just different. As rich and wonderful as BotNS is, it helps you to think about things in general--among them political things--rather than to think about specific social questions. I don't really buy that a book is political, specifically, unless it puts its money where its mouth is at and has deals with concrete issues rather than abstractions. To me, politics is at least as much for doing as for thinking, and I dislike the idea that any old book that is "deep" is automatically and concretely political. True, in a sense everything is political, and everything we read in one way or anther contributes to the work we do, but I still think that trying to preserve some categories aids us immesureably in talking about things. Wolfe may be deep, in short, and he may have a lot to teach me, but if I'm fighting a highway expanion I'll take the EarthFirst manual every time. (Deep breath...) All squabbling aside, since we both admit that BotNS is wonderful and intricate and full of interesting philosophizing, I will ask this: you have read Urth of the New Sun, have you not? Tell me a little about your reponses. It's not really as taking as BotNS, I felt, but it had a lot of memorable scenes. And why (how) do you feel Severian passed the test? And how about those few people who were saved? Why those did Wolfe choose to write those people as the saved ones? And how about that peculiar spaceship? It seemed to point up the fact that if the earth didn't get the New Sun, life would tick on for the rest of the universe...Now I am thinking, knowing as I do that Wolfe is a Catholic, that this could potentially tie in with a sort of catholic fatalism about life in the flesh. And all that cyclic stuff--reminds me a lot of Chesterton era catholics. And how about Severian as a Christ-figure? Rather a peculiar Christ figure for a Catholic to write, were one to hew to the stereotypes about Catholics--which I think would be a mistake in Wolfe's case. What about Christ the executioner? And how about him being unable to cure everyone? Sort of an interesting comment on ideas about Christ, huh? (As I've said before on this list, I myself am an atheist, but a Christian upbringing has left me with a lot of interest in Christian thought...) I really like being able to talk to someone who's read and enjoyed BotNS, since I know so few people who have. Easily as signifigant for the genre as Tolkien...(To me, Wolfe is writing fantasy as much as sf. It was a bit tricky, too, to explain to my children's librarian mom why she should order a set of books about a torturer for the library's sf collection. Anyway, as phoebe always signs her posts, lightly, lightly. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:56:12 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Yvonne Rowse Subject: Re: Komarr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Joe > Okay, this post goes under the heading of "please teach me, I >really want to understand." Two summers ago I went on a quest to read >all the "classic" works of general speculative fiction, just so I could >get the references and stop being embarrassed by saying, "Um, no, I >haven't read that." > One of the names I saw recurrently on recommended lists was >Bujold's, so I looked up which one of her most-recommended titles was at >my library. The one I found, I think, was _The Vor Game_ (it's about >Miles saving the. . .Emporer. . .and meeting a lovely woman who has >kidnapped him. . .what else. . oh, I think Miles is serving duty on some >hole in the wall planet at the beginning, where he finds a dead body in >the sewage? It's really cold planet, I think. . . .). In short, I hated >it. I was irritated that I had wasted my time reading such a completely >within-the-envelope novel when I could have been reading something like >one of Le Guin's more obscure novels or even just the next Ender book. I >found the book well-paced, full of adequate to good characterization, and >with little else to recommend it. The male-female relationships had been >done in a more interesting tone in Harrison's early Rat novellas. The >detective story had been done better in Willis's stories. Even David >Brin's science was more convincing than the science in that book. > So what was I missing? Did I just pick a bad book? (I think it won >multiple awards, though. . .that was one of the criteria I had for which >books I read that summer.) I just wrote her off as a fad that had somehow >wormed its way onto the award lists, but everyone keeps talking about her, >and even _Locus_ (see my previous post for thoughts on their reviews) cooed >over her latest Miles book. Help me! I want to be in with the in crowd! Well, seeing it was my enthusing that raised this question I'll have a shot at answering it. I like the Vorkosigan books because of Miles. That's it really. I don't read very critically. I can read a poorly written book once if the story is in any way interesting. I can read about characters I don't like, or find unbelievable. Hell, I've read the Bridges of Madison County all the way through, cringing at whatsisnames pretentious twaddle but still reading. I can read books full of brilliant ideas with cardboard characters. The books I reread are the ones where the characters stay with me. I can forgive clumsy writing and cliches as long as the characters live in my mind. Miles does this. So does Andrew Wiggin and Shevek. There is a select cast of characters living in my mind. Only one in maybe a hundred books contains someone I think about when I'm not reading the book. The Vorkosigan books also have Taura (with a big pink bow round her neck-made my eyes swim), Bothari, Cordelia, Aral, Gregor, Elli, Mark, Illyan and Ivan. Elena never quite made it for me. Certainly the first time I read one of these books I was only mildly charmed. I think it's a cumulative effect and the later books are much better. What is it about Miles? He's full of self-doubt, battling against the odds. Perhaps it's a girl thing but I like my heros to be human. So few of them are. Yvonne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:19:33 -0800 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: Greed as a motive for writing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Oct 98 12:43:11 GMT." <802566AB.0045B81D.00@osiris.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >And let me make another outrageous statement. The vast majority of authors, > regardless of artistic inclination, would do _anything_ - upto and >including human sacrifice - if they thought it would make their books >bestsellers. One can never overestimate greed as a motivator! Good grief. Almost no one makes a fortune writing. Many writers take other job so they can support their non-lucrative writing habit. If these writers would "do anything", why are so many writing for small markets, about topics that are not popular, for tiny presses, etc? Why isn't everyone trying to emulate Stephen King and Jayne Ann Krentz? Why do people write about out-there topics, about ideas that the "mainstream" public won't like? *I* write because I'm trying to learn how to do it well, because I'm interested in extrapolating from a couple of variations on human relationships to see how it'll turn out, etc etc. Would it be sort of gratifying to publish something some day? Probably. Is that why I do it? No. I'm a network engineer, I will *never* make more money writing than working at my job, and if money was what I wanted I would quit writing and take on an extra consulting job in the time thus freed up. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:39:19 -0800 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: Komarr In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Oct 98 17:56:12 GMT." <000601be029c$563c51e0$fc045cc3@softnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >One of the names I saw recurrently on recommended lists was Bujold's The easiest answer to this question is: yes, you picked a bad book. _The Vor Game_ has always been my least favorite of the series. The fact that it won the Hugo reminded me of someone's statement that "the readers don't always pick the right books, but they pick the right authors". However, it's partly a cumulative effect -- that book is greatly improved by having read the ones that come before it, which set up a lot of background and make much of the book more meaningful. Unfortunately, those early books suffer from first-book syndrome and the writing is much weaker. Lucky for me I read the first two when I was 14 or so and was less picky. I think the two things that drew me in to these books were the characters and the deviousness, both of which are more lacking in TVG. _Warrior's Apprentice_ has the deviousness in spades -- I kept cackling hysterically when I read it the first time -- but when I went back to reread it last month I was startled to find that it was actually not very tightly written. If you can get past that, it's got a very twisty plot. [People who liked that book might like the movie _Red Rock West_, too.] Some people have recommended that you start with _Brothers In Arms_, which is better-written, doesn't begin with a separately-published novella, and has more of the personality that is so much of the appeal. I might recommend _Barrayar_, which is about Miles's mother, a damn fine role model. Of course, for full plot awareness you would want to first read _Shards of Honor_ [which is published with _Barrayar_ in an omnibus edition entitled _Cordelia's Honor_] which was her first book and is much weaker. But very sweet, with interesting reflections on human nature. You see the problem. You used the phrase "within-the-envelope" at one point -- it's always seemed to me that the envelope-pushing lies in the attention to character and self-instropection and personal honor and integrity. _Barrayar_ has a lot of this, and _Brothers In Arms_ has a fair bit, along with weird plot twists. I enjoy these books a lot, so I'd recommend that you try 'em again. But hey, if they bore you, skip it and move on to someone else. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:04:16 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: Excuse me? I wrote >>Perhaps I'm just being dense here: I still don't think you're addressing the >>issue of _fiction_, in whatever form. to which Joe responded: >Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but "fiction" doesn't mean just >written media which was indeed my point. I'm quite happy with people discussing fictional forms in whatever medium, provided there is some connection to s-f, fantasy and utopianism, and feminism! There are other lists out there discussing cyber issues and feminism in the contemporary, 'real-life' context. Lesley Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:19:29 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: Greed as a motive for writing Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 28 Oct 98, at 10:19, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Good grief. Almost no one makes a fortune writing. > Many writers take other job so they can support their > non-lucrative writing habit. If these writers would "do > anything", why are so many writing for small markets, > about topics that are not popular, for tiny presses, etc? Very few people win lotteries but that doesn't stop hundreds of millions buying tickets every day. As you imply, writing itself is pleasurable but - except for the few - badly paid. My point was that almost all of the badly-paid many would love to be one of the well-paid few. Many people - including me - started writing for obscure newspapers etc to "test the waters" and to build up a portfolio; most people get no further. I would think it's much the same for books. I'd guess that many of those writing for tiny presses do so because they can't write books that would attract large publishers. But I was talking about the _overwhelming majority_ of writers not _every single writer_; there are exceptions to every rule. > Why isn't everyone trying to emulate Stephen King and Jayne Ann > Krentz? Why do people write about out-there topics, about ideas > that the "mainstream" public won't like? *I* write because I'm > trying to learn how to do it well, because I'm jessie Plenty of people try to write like Stephen King etc but few succeed. A client of Anthea's who works for a major London publisher, sees several hundred manuscripts - most of them emulating current bestsellers - every year. Almost all of the manuscripts are bad, many laughably so, but the great majority have taken months of hard work and represent their writers' hopes and dreams. Ask almost any publisher or literary agent in your own area and I'm sure you'll get the same answer. The reason why more people don't write like Stephen King is that they simply don't have the talent. Regardless of what we think of his work he has great talent and abilities possessed by a vanishingly small number of writers. The problem is of course that while one can learn certain "tricks of the trade" to improve one's writing, my own observations convince me that the ability to write commercially successful work is innate; either one has it or one doesn't. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) __________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:59:17 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: ( Re: [*FSFFU*] Bujold (was Komarr) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The only Bujold I have read was the dual book of which included Cordelia's Honor...and it was a little cheesy but fully enjoyable. I felt that the reading of Cordelia before the wedding was much stronger/more feminist than that of Cordelia after the wedding, but she still pretty much kicked butt. I've not gone on to read more because I think Cordelia was the most interesting (and only non cardboard) character of the book, and besides, where would one begin to know where to start the Miles books? There seem to be bazillions of them. Has Bujold written any more Cordelia books? And how do the Miles books compare to these two books? Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:02:43 -0500 Reply-To: everett@wavetech.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Everett Till Subject: Re: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My Friend Jane Franklin wrote: > You could read this so many ways: don't aspire above your station > (which fits in with a TV interview a friend (who will be joining the > list in the next couple days, I'll ask him to post his opinion) saw > about Wolfe and Wolfe's Catholoicism). Hi everybody! Years ago (c. 1983-1986???) I saw Gene Wolfe and another SF writer be interviewed on a book show that Studs Terkel and Calvin Trillin hosted on A&E. (I've gotta say that this series was the best show on books that I've ever seen.) While I don't recall that Gene Wolfe made any comments about keeping people "in their place," my overall impression of him based on that TV interview (and, possibly his essays and interviews elsewhere) is that he is a "Catholic Writer" emulating and expanding upon the White-Tolkien-Lewis tradition. I would guess that he would share with many current Catholic conservatives as distaste for the vernacular, as well as for the politically engaged currents of post-Vatican II Catholicism. My sense is that Wolfe is nostalgic for the Mass in Latin and the Mysteries of the pre-Vatican Catholic Church. I used to label such people automatically as reactionaries. The problem with doing that is that many wiccans and pagans, as well as theologians such as Matthew Fox, also seem to be chasing the mysteries. Is Wolfe reactionary? I dunno. The categories can become meaningless after a certain point. Take the case of Gershom Scholem. Was he reactionary? Scholem was a Zionist, so that's 10,000 points against him. To his credit, he revised the history of Judaism by showing how modern Judaism was a response to the failed messianic revolt of Sabbatai Sevi. Scholem demonstrated that Hasidism was a direct outgrowth of the failure of this messianic nationalist movement, a movement in which Kaballah was central. Scholem brought to light historical information that Liberal and secularizing currents within Judiasm viewed with extreme disfavor. The *Book of the New Sun* is about memory and nostalgia. I don't see it as having any particularly feminist content. The female characters are mostly "acted upon" by their male environment. I don't get the sense that this is a conscious polemic on Wolfe's part; it's just an indication of where his interests do and don't lie. Some interesting observations on *The Book of the New Sun*: *The first book of the series was published the same year as two other key science fantasy series: Silverberg's Majipoor books and Joan D. Vinge's The Snow Queen. An interesting coincidence that three of works most associated with baroque science fantasy emerge in the same year, at the beginning of the Reagan Era. *Two sources of inspiration for Wolfe may have been Jack Vance's Dying Earth series and Michael Moorcock's Hawkmoon series. Both feature far future, culturally involuted, dying earths. *The Urth of the New Sun is full of references to the Kaballah. *The interesting paleologisms in Wolfe's series. All of the "made-up" words are either real-but-archaic, or constructed of Greek and Latin root words. He was in effect throwing down a challenge to SF writers and fantasists alike: "Be as inventive as what already exists." *The Autarch, if memory serves is a hermaphrodite. What are we to make of that? John Everett Till ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:12:48 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Blue Soon Subject: Re: Animated sf Content-Type: text/plain Re: Aeon Flux >From: eva >personally, i liked it, but i tend to agree that aeon was something of a >feminist antihero. Hi. i'm new to the list and have been lurking a bit.... I, too enjoyed Aeon Flux, but i confess to being extremely perplexed with her motivations and character. In some episodes she's very focused and professional, in others she's easily distracted by trivialities. I get the impression that the writer was being deliberately abtruse about the character in an attempt to give her an air of mystery and comlexity. I just ended up being really confused. The series also has a pretty strong S/M theme running through it, especiall the relationship between Aeon and that blonde guy...Trevor. But to add to her being a questionable feminist character, all of the other female characters which have ever appeared in the series were stereotypical gullible females, easy prey for the males. So, definitely not a work with a strong feminist sentiment. -Blue ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:32:33 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: Komarr In-Reply-To: <9810281839.AA09124@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> (message from Jessie Stickgold-Sarah on Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:39:19 -0800) Just to add my $.02 to the cup, while I've enjoyed a few of Bujold's books, they fall into the brain-candy category for me. Sweet, kind of tasty, not much substance. E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:44:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Subject: ideas vs. characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've read a few times now the argument that science fiction is a "literature of ideas" as a defense against poor characterization in SF stories. It seems to me that authors of the books we usually talk about on this list pay more attention to character development than actual ideas--almost as if the SF elements of the books are what makes it possible for the characters to be the people they are. What do people on the list think of this and does anyone know who has said that SF is a literature of ideas? Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:06:14 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" In-Reply-To: <802566AB.006FA546.00@osiris.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ONe last thing thankyou for everyone who added their bit to the issues I brought up... And Im very sorry to find that people out there can be so petty. NO wonder the world is the way it is when people cant have a simple discussion without others making trouble. ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:01:03 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)" Subject: Re: Excuse me? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well its sounds as though people are not intersted in expanding on issues brought up in the novels and I will therefore take my name off the list. At 20:04 28/10/98 +0000, you wrote: >I wrote >>>Perhaps I'm just being dense here: I still don't think you're addressing the >>>issue of _fiction_, in whatever form. > >to which Joe responded: > > >Actually, and correct me if I'm wrong, but "fiction" doesn't mean just > >written media > >which was indeed my point. I'm quite happy with people discussing fictional >forms in whatever medium, provided there is some connection to s-f, fantasy >and utopianism, and feminism! There are other lists out there discussing cyber >issues and feminism in the contemporary, 'real-life' context. >Lesley >Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com > > ~*If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.*~ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 23:54:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: The Dreams Our Stuff. . . In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19981028094703.0091f7a0@pop.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joe Sutliff Sanders wrote: > >In his collection *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, > >Thomas M. Disch wrote a bizarrely vitriolic essay about feminist science > >fiction that spends much of its length dumping on Le Guin for her > >choices of what to include in the *Norton Book of SF*. (According to > >him, her selections were based on ideology, not literary merit.) > > >Janice E. Dawley > > Has anyone else looked this book over? I have a chance to buy it in the > next couple days for 30% off and have given it a quick look. _Locus_ tore > it to shreds in their review, but they often like to reassert their role as > guardian of the tower, so I wasn't sure how to take that. > > Joe > I've read the Disch book and didn't like it much. Disch can be a brilliant writer and some of his criticisms are spot on, but he sees science fiction from a somewhat distorted angle, and often ends up c riticizing apples for not being oranges. Totally aside from this Disch can be very nasty. My wife reviewed a collection of his own reviews of poetry books and there was hardly a positive review in the entire bunch. Disch has always had a bit of a misogynistic streak, is particularly intolerant of anything that smacks of feminist thought and truly does seem to hate LeGuin. Of course he and LeGuin came up in the SF world at about the same time and, although Disch had his share of critical successes, he never succeeded either critically or financially to the extent Le Guin did, so there might be a fair amount of jealousy at work. Two other problems with the book (IMO). Because Disch's premise is that science fiction has in fact colonized mainstream America, nearly half of the book is devoted to such subjects as UFOs and Scientology. Further, the book has any number of factual errors. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to names of stories and authors Disch was working from memory and never bothered to check his facts. Mike Levy