From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tue Dec 29 16:03:05 1998
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:57:38 -0600
From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)"
To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET
Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9810E"
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 00:16:08 -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: <3.0.32.19981028100726.00923e80@pop.uky.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joe Sutliff Sanders wrote:
> 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
>
Actually, I had a similar reaction to early Bujold. Part of my change of
opinion is undoubtedly a function of getting to know her as a friend
after she moved to Minneapolis. On the other hand, I also think that
she's really improved as a writer. I would not have voted for The Vor Game for
the Hugo either. It was, IMO, a fun, relatively lightweight adventure
novel.
Bujold really began to improve, however, with Barryar. Her best novel, in
my opinion, is Memory.
What makes her worthwhile? Unlike most of the top sf writers, she isn't
really an idea person. What she does extraordinarily well is create
characters who you can care about, characters who have considerable depth
to them, and who change over time.
Based on the evidence of her fanmail and attendence at her readings,
Bujold's work also tends to appeal somewhat more to women than to men and
is particularly popular with gay men and lesbians, not to mention disabled fans
of SF. Several critics have suggested that women readers see Miles Vorkosigan,
her protagonist, who is enormously competent, but who is also small and
weak and must live by his wits, as what lit crit people call a coded female
character, ie. an ostensibly male character who is symbolically female and easily
identified with by women readers. Miles also seems to attract some of the kind of
attention that fans of slash fiction lavish on Kirk and Spock.
Finally, there's the prickly and constantly changing relationship between
Miles' parents. His father comes from an intensely sexist society, but is
working hard to get away from sexism. His mother, a former military
officer, comes from an egalitarian society, hates the sexism of her
husband's home world where she has chosen to live, and feels more than a
little uncomfortable with herself for having chosen to settle into what
is at least in part the conventional female role of wife and mother.
No one will ever mistake Bujold for Le Guin, but her books can still be
richly rewarding.
Mike Levy
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:40:51 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: Komarr
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
On 29 Oct 98 Michael Marc Levy wrote:
> Finally, there's the prickly and constantly changing relationship
> between Miles' parents.
That statement surprised me. I have read the first 6
Barrayar books (_Shards of Honor_, _Barrayar_, the first Miles
Vorkosigan novel (where he ends up with the mercenaries for the
first time), _The Vor Game_, _Ethan of Athos_, _Borders of Infinity_)
and IMO after _Barrayar_ Cordelia practically drops out of the
picture. Does she reappear in one of the later novels?
The first of these books I've read was _Barrayar_ after it was
recommended in a newsgroup as SF with a strong female role model.
Probably because of the high expectations I had and my personal
situation at that time (I had just finished university and
compatibility of a career and family was one of my BIG issues) I was
disappointed. The strong woman moved to a patriarchal society,
married, gave up her job and became pregnant. And although she was
presented as a fighter in the second half of the book, it was only as
a mother lion defending her cub. Afterwards I've read _Shards of
Honor_ and that shifted my view of Cordelia. Then I was curious how
the her life would continue in this militaristic, patriarchal society
and went on to the other books. And again I was disappointed. She
appears now and then very shortly as Miles' mother but it is hard to
imagine her life after the events in _Barrayar_ but as the consort of
the prime minister, with representative functions, perhaps some
welfare activities, mostly raising Miles.
And what happened to Cordelia's bodyguard in _Barrayar_? She married
at the end of that book and was never mentioned again. The only
active, non-traditional women in the Barrayar novels I remember are
those not living on Barrayar and not moving to it.
I want to stress that I enjoyed reading the novels. _The Vor Game_
appeared to me as a rehash of the one before. From those about Miles
I liked _Borders of Infinity_ best. I started with the one after
that but somehow could not get interested and did not finish it.
Petra
*** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de ***
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:27:33 -0500
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 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:
>
> 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.
>
I enjoyed it, but I seem to be in the minority. If you're looking for a
serious critical study of sf that explains the enormous impact it has had
on the culture and society of today (that is, roughly speaking, the
premise), you're a bit out of luck. If you're looking for a highly
idiosyncratic and personal set of reflections on the field by one of its
best writers, then you might like it. So if you like Disch's fiction,
you might like the book. John Clute has a very insightful review of it
on the sci-fi weekly web page where he concludes that Disch is pulling
the wool over our eyes, but he does it masterfully.
-John Bertland
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:40:03 -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: The Dreams Our Stuff...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Marc Levy wrote:
> 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
> criticizing 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.
Yes, that was my impression as well. He seemed angry about the *Norton
Book of SF* mostly because Le Guin wanted to include a story of his that
he thought unworthy, then was unreceptive when he suggested another one.
So NEITHER story is included in the book. I pulled my copy off the shelf
today, since there's been some discussion of it lately, and found the
following puzzling, probably Disch-related sentence in the introduction:
"We regret the absence of the one author who refused us the story we
wanted, offering us instead a recipe for pudding, which we found did not
meet our criteria."
As far as Disch's mysogyny and thoughts on feminism... I don't know if
it's as simple as that. He seems to think quite well of Joanna Russ,
whose feminism is much more obviously present throughout her body of
work than Le Guin's. But Russ is more of an outsider than Le Guin, who
was raised in the academic world of ideas and never seems to have
suffered for her lifestyle or her art. The only book of Disch's that I
have read is *334*, and I was bowled over by it. I loved it. There are a
number of very interesting female characters in that book (all three
viewpoint characters in the longest story, titled "334", are women) and
I did not detect any hint of mysogyny. What about his other books?
--
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, 29 Oct 1998 10:29:28 -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: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Everett Till wrote:
> *The Autarch, if memory serves is a hermaphrodite. What are we to make
> of that?
IIRC, the Autarch was a man who was neutered for failing the test that
Severian passes. It was explained to Severian at one point what would
happen to him if he failed, and I thought it funny that so many previous
Autarchs had refused to take the test because they were afraid of being
desexed! "Hm... certain doom with the dying of the old sun or the chance
that I might become a eunuch. ...I'll take certain doom!"
I know it's not as simple as that, because certain doom could take
hundreds more years whereas castration would occur right away. It's
always tempting to pass the buck. But it seems like a very strange
punishment for a universal god-like race to choose. Perhaps it says
something about Wolfe's own preoccupations with gender and sex.
p.s. welcome, John. I liked your post!
--
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, 29 Oct 1998 10:42:45 -0500
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: John Bertland
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
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Janice E. Dawley 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.)
I'm assuming from your dismissal of it as "bizzarely vitriolic" that you
disagree with his essay, although you give no reasons why. After all,
there is an obvious ideological element to Le Guin's selection criteria
for the anthology, as Disch points out (and he only spends about three
and a half pages out of twenty two - hardly much of its length). I'm not
sure how one could deny that. Depending on one's feelings about that
ideology and the role of polemics in writing and editing, one could still
find it to be a wonderful anthology. Given that it is a Norton
anthology, I think, as Disch argues, that it is misleading and a
disservice to the genre.
-John Bertland
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:23:30 -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
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>> "Janice E. Dawley" 10/29 9:29 AM >>>
John Everett Till wrote:
> *The Autarch, if memory serves is a hermaphrodite. What are we to make
> of that?
(from Janice Dawley)
>>IIRC, the Autarch was a man who was neutered for failing the test that
Severian passes. It was explained to Severian at one point what would
happen to him if he failed, and I thought it funny that so many previous
Autarchs had refused to take the test because they were afraid of being
desexed!
I also thought that if the autarch, after failing the test, could have
children, then the autarchy might become hereditary rather than being
passed on by eating the flesh of the Autarch. (another Christ reference?
The autarchy, after all, was not set up to really "rule" the country but
rather to produce people to go to the stars.
So what do we think of the fact that the aliens decide whether or not we
get the new sun? This reminds me very much of Doris Lessing and her
infuriating nostalgia-for-totalitarianism Shikasta series (let me just add
that I adore Doris Lessing with a passion and consider her perhaps the
most important white female Western writer of her era. (Note the perhaps)
Anyway, that doesn't keep me from just hating those Shikasta books.)
And is Wolfe a fatalist? Severian does seem to be fated to be Autarch,
and the method of the story--a recounting after Severian is already
Autarch--adds to that feeling. And that's a particularly nice comment on
the Catholicism of White and Tolkien. Anybody want to see if we can tie
Wolfe to Tolkien?
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:39:27 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Robin Reid
Subject: Disch book
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Janice Dawley asked about: "*The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*, by Thomas M.
Disch
"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."
I bought the book along with a batch of others and was planning to do a
review of it for the SFRA Newsletter. But after I read it, I wrote and
backed out of that commitment. I absolutely hated it--it totally infuriated
me--I think he has some major problem with women writers and feminists--I
found his attacks on Le Guin as editor to be vicious, and there was a bunch
else I hated that I have managed to forget. Oh, yeah, it was all the stuff
about how feminists are narrow and politically ideological, while white male
writers aren't. Ha. I suppose people can say it's quirky and just his look
at things, but he's making some major claims about sf and society that go
beyond individual opinion. I wanted to jump up and down on it, set it on
fire, and pulverize the ashes. That said, if anybody would like my copy,
I'll be glad to send it to them for the postage (which is about $3.00 for
the 2 pound 2 day mail rate). I don't know what his problem is--and I
cannot understand why the book got published, but I found it completely
lacking any useful aspect.
Blech.
Robin
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:42:13 -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
I suppose it's somewhat old hat to say that evey anthology is selective
and therefore every anthology has an agenda, implicit or explicit. (Btw,
I was really hoping we could have a little dust-up over le Guin's
selections, since I'm not sure what I think...is this what people refer to
as "trolling" on internet lists?) This seems particularly true of
anthologies dealing with new or previously under-anthologized materials.
After all, read the contemporary poetry section of even the Norton
anthologies of poetry and you just flinch in embarassment half the time.
Or read old poetry anthologies and see what they selected as the best of
contemporary poetry. Gaack!
I bet if you examined every Norton anthology compiled by a famous name,
you would find some sort of pattern about what was included. And I
suppose that a lot of "hard" science fiction is anthologized already.
And also, an awful lot of those hard science stories just don't hold up
too well. They don't have much characterization and the plot hinges on
some thrilling discovery quickly left behind by technology or by sf
writing. Why not anthologize stories conceivably of interest to a larger
audience, stories with more plot and characterization?
(Hey, I just thought of a question--if you could put together an anthology
on a theme, what would the theme be? What would some of the stories you'd
put in be? Also, has anyone read a collection of sf stories about
children published in the 1960's called, I believe, tomorrow's children?
It was a hardcover, outsize book, with a magenta background and strange
yellow-orange children with large heads on the cover. There was one story
about a little girl who was extremely smart and figured out how to
"tesser" like in A Wrinkle In Time. Also a story about some mutant
children despised by everyone. This was my favorite sf anthology for
years, but the library ditched the book. Anybody? Anybody? )
And, for those of you who have read the anthology, I am really anxious for
some opinions on that last story about the Arab assasin, by Bruce
Sterling.
Also, what would you have included in the anthology that would correct any
bias you may believe it to have?
>>> John Bertland 10/29 9:42 AM >>>
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Janice E. Dawley 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.)
I'm assuming from your dismissal of it as "bizzarely vitriolic" that you
disagree with his essay, although you give no reasons why. After all,
there is an obvious ideological element to Le Guin's selection criteria
for the anthology, as Disch points out (and he only spends about three
and a half pages out of twenty two - hardly much of its length). I'm not
sure how one could deny that. Depending on one's feelings about that
ideology and the role of polemics in writing and editing, one could still
find it to be a wonderful anthology. Given that it is a Norton
anthology, I think, as Disch argues, that it is misleading and a
disservice to the genre.
-John Bertland
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:50:25 -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
I've been reading A Heroine of the World, and it occurs to me that Lee is
tremendously influence by Delaney. Not in the prose department, but it
seems like she's trying to write female characters who are tough and
scheming and participate in political intrigues much like those in
Delaney's Neveryon books. Anybody read those? They're a bit hard to find
now, and a bit hard to get into, but the one where the main character is a
chubby plain girl who ends up having all these adventures that don't
really work out according to convention, that's pretty neat.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:06:36 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Hailey Tytel
Subject: Tomorrow's Children
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> put in be? Also, has anyone read a collection of sf stories about children
> published in the 1960's called, I believe, tomorrow's children?
I just had to come out of lurk-mode here - this anthology was also may
favorite book in elementary school. Does anyone have any idea where these
stories "ended up?" Are any reprinted in other anthologies? Unfortunately,
I was in fifth grade last I read this, so even names of authors are a hazy
memory.....
It was a
> hardcover, outsize book, with a magenta background and strange yellow-orange
> children with large heads on the cover. There was one story about a little
> girl who was extremely smart and figured out how to "tesser" like in A
> Wrinkle In Time. Also a story about some mutant children despised by
> everyone. This was my favorite sf anthology for years, but the library
> ditched the book. Anybody? Anybody? )
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:24:59 +0100
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Maria Hayball
Subject: P.D.James
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Has anyone read P.D:James 'Children of Men'? It's
about a near future when children are no longer
born. I'd like your feelings about the book.
Marie
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:53:29 PST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Daniel Krashin
Subject: Subject: Greed as a motive for writing
Content-Type: text/plain
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:43:11 +0000
>From: Mike Stanton
>Subject: Greed as a motive for writing
>
>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).
Money is indeed a lovely thing, but publication also serves as
1)a validation of the writer
2)the only way to get one's work before a whole bunch of people,
some of whom may be changed forever by it.
I don't know why #2 is so important, but it is to me, and to many
writers.
>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.
True. Frex, J.D. Salinger apparently is still writing, somewhere,
but no longer wants anyone to read his stuff. I am sure there are
other talented writers out there who will not, for whatever reason,
take the necessary steps to get their work published (submitting
it in a decent format, rewriting to editorial request, etc.)
Then there are people who only publish in SF fanzines, or zines in
general, or on the Web...
There's nothing wrong with any of this. Writing is as good
a hobby as any other, and cheaper than most. But, at least in the
SF field, most fiction writers dream of being published.
>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.
But does this mean you're greedy? For a lot of full time authors,
"success" means making enough from writing to pay the bills and
not have to get a day job. Making a ton of money pushes the wolf
that much further from the door, yeah? Did Octavia Butler turn
up her nose at that "genius grant?" Besides, making a lot of
money for your publishers means you can count on a better contract,
and more publicity, for your next work, getting it before even
more readers. Kinda like actors and jazz musicians.
Literary ambition is a lot more complicated than you give it credit
for, Mike. I think the best argument against your idea that greed
is the primary motivator for writers is the fact that writing is
so financially unrewarding for most people! Most writers are making
less than minimum wage for the time they put in. They'd do better
temping as secretaries.
Danny
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:53:45 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: Tomorrow's Children
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/29/98 5:19:18 PM, you wrote:
< published in the 1960's called, I believe, tomorrow's children?>>
I could be very wrong but have a feeling I had this, but in paperback.
Got it second-hand. Concur it's a doozie.
lightly,
phoebe
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:50:25 -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
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, eva wrote:
> personally, i liked it, but i tend to agree that aeon was something of a
> feminist antihero.
I'm just curious -- what is a feminist anti-hero? This term kind of
confuses me. Does it mean a "villain"?
And what would make Aeon Flux an anti-hero instead of a hero?
I personally see her as a real hero, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
Marina
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:59:26 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 - 27 Oct 1998 to 28 Oct 1998
Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 08:13:20 -0600
>From: Jane Franklin
>Subject: Re: Ursula Le Guin and Politics
>
[snip]
>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?
I had the same reaction. I was surprised that some reviewers
credited him with an "unstereotyped view of the Arab" -- seemed
like same old, same old to me. I think it's called something like
"We See Things Differently Here." Sterling has done much better
elsewhere, BTW. Try _Schizmatrix Plus_ or _Holy Fire_.
BTW, Jane, could you try to use more carriage returns (Enter keys)
in your posts? My email program doesn't break them up into shorter
lines very well and it's hard to read.
Danny
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:34:05 +0000
Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: geminiwalker
Subject: Re: Request
In-Reply-To: <36373C0D.E0925B21@fuse.net>
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
>
>
ooooh! oooooh! I got one of them stacks, too!
...geminiwalker
chuard@earthlink.net
Dare to be monstrous.
-- dorothy allison
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 12:23:56 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Children
In-Reply-To: <417acf69.3638aba9@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Phoebe Wray wrote:
>
> < > published in the 1960's called, I believe, tomorrow's children?>>
>
> I could be very wrong but have a feeling I had this, but in paperback.
> Got it second-hand. Concur it's a doozie.
>
CHILDREN OF WONDER, edited (I think) by William Tenn>
Patricia (Pat) Mathews
mathews@unm.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:04:15 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?
>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
Oh? After all the discussion on OT posts and the way things do move off
from the initial point? I think we're all interested in explanding on the
issues that novels (and other fictional forms, see current discussion on
Aeon Flux) bring up, but that's the point we proceed from. That's where it
starts. In the imagination.
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:54:48 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Marina
Subject: Re: Leaving and staying
Comments: To: "Ms.Devilspin (jenn)"
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981029150103.006dd33c@hemlock.newcastle.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I'm sorry you are leaving, Jenn. This kind of fights over "what belongs
on the list" break out here all the time, and even though I cannot tell
you "just don't pay attention", I wish you would stick around. I liked
your posts, and I think it's important to have the variety of science
fiction-feminism-related topics present in the discussion, be that books
or not.
The reason for this particular controversy, in my opinion, is the fact
that book fans often feel excluded from the mainstream social sphere,
which is more concentrated on other forms of media (at least that's what
everyone keeps saying). Because of that, some people might feel that a
discussion list that seem to have books as its primary area of
concentration should be an exclusively "book" realm. It's kind of like a
ghetto paranoia -- "This is our space, it's created for us, and those who
don't agree with us should go to the places created for them!"
At the same time, most people who like reading and discussing books (me
including) are also interested in other media presenting the same ideas --
in this case feminist sicence fiction, or at least open-minded about them.
In my opinion, cyberculture is a very interesting new
phenomenon, very much related to science fiction, and therefore is
on-topic. We can vote on including it in the description of the list, if
we have to.
By the way, I just looked into the introductory message we all
received at subcribing, and guess what?
>Welcome to FeministSF - a list for fans, writers, activists and scholars
>to discuss feminist science fiction.
-- it does not say anything about the media the above-mentioned topic has
to originate from. No mention of "except cyber-related".
Moreover, i found something else there:
* If someone else is not sticking to the topic, don't flame
them. Try bringing the topic back to feminist sf-f-utopia
with a related, transitional posting that is ON topic.
That will be more useful than a comment that is only
about "keeping the list on topic," and it can keep the list
a pleasant place to be.
I don't know if any of our Crusaders for Topic Purity has ever read that,
but this means, basically, that even if some people think you
understanding of "on-topic" is wrong, they are not really supposed to tell
you to go to another list.
I like books, Jenn, but if you don't -- _no one_ can tell you that you
should. And your apporach to science fiction is just as valuable as
others'.
In general, you don't have to share this view, but my policy on those who
tell you to get out is: "I like it here, and if you don't -- you leave".
So far, our list has not developed its own immigration service, so no one
really can claim that you don't belong here because you are a Cyberperson
instead of a Reader.
Of course, whether to stay off the list or come back is up to you.
But I think you might enjoy sticking around.
Marina
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Ms.Devilspin (jenn) wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> >There are other lists out there discussing
> cyber
> >issues and feminism in the contemporary, 'real-life' context.
>
> ~*If you're not living on the edge,
> you're taking up too much space.*~
>
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:51:06 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Marina
Subject: Re: Greed as a motive for writing
In-Reply-To: <802566AB.0045B81D.00@osiris.postmaster.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Mike Stanton wrote:
> 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!
Well, I think it's not greed but just the basic fact that writers are
people, and people need to eat. If writing is the author's primary source
of income, then the more successful is a book, the less is the pressure to
write and publish another book as soon as possible, before the bills catch up
with her. I think that most of us, if our pay could be as varied as a
book author's -- from nothing to millions -- would be very interested to
make it as high as possible too.
Of course there is always a danger of "selling out" -- by writing trash
and/or something against the author's beliefs. However, I think that most
people manage to achieve a reasonable compromise.
After all, it's about that old "ivory tower" thing -- it's great to be
independent from financial worries and other outside influences, and
pursue the pure science or art. However, unless one has a trust fund,
that idea is very hard to implement in real life.
Writers are people, and people need money to feed themselves and their
families. Even if that means to write trash -- do the rest of us _always_
do what we want/enjoy at our jobs? Probably not, therefore, we cannot
blame them. Besides, the desire to make lots of money to buy one's kid
that pony, in my opinion, cannot be simply labeled as "greed". It's
better for a person to be "materialistic" than to live in a dump and have
their kids made fun of at school for wearing the same one set of old rags
for two years in a row because the parents are "too honest to degrade
themselves with pursuing financial success".
I know this is an extreme case. And I agree that money should not be
always the only priority (in which case it would make more sense to
sell crack rather than bother becoming a writer). However, I think
it's very unfair to blame people for their desire to be successful.
Besides, if in order to achieve that success people betray their own moral
boundaries, they are not greedy, they are just stupid.
IMHO,
Marina
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:18:42 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Marina
Subject: Re: Leaving and staying
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
All that said, I think that there is enough space here for the fans of
feminist science fiction in all forms -- books, movies, cyberculture, or
anything else. I understand that some people may not feel that way, but I
think it's important for us to accept each other without necesserily
agreeing.
IMHO,
Marina
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Marina wrote:
> I'm sorry you are leaving, Jenn. This kind of fights over "what belongs
> on the list" break out here all the time, and even though I cannot tell
> you "just don't pay attention", I wish you would stick around. I liked
> your posts, and I think it's important to have the variety of science
> fiction-feminism-related topics present in the discussion, be that books
> or not.
etc...
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:12:58 -0500
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Jeri Wright
Subject: Re: Komarr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<< So what was I missing? Did I just pick a bad book? >>
I would guess that Bujold just doesn't work for you. I love her
writing, but no writer appeals to everyone, and if she leaves you cold,
you certainly shouldn't waste time reading more.
As for the appeal, I'm guessing that you prefer "idea" books, while I
prefer "character" books. Bujold's strength is in creating characters I
care about and want to spend time with. Which is why she is on my
"automatic" buy list; someone whose books I will buy without even
looking at the flyleaf first.
--
Jeri Wright
destrier@richmond.infi.net
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:55:18 EST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: "Barbara R. Hume"
Subject: Re: FW: [*FSFFU*] Recorded books--Feminist Scifi/Fantasy
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/26/98 1:41:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
SFStahl@CN.HUC.EDU writes:
<<
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.
>>
Yes, it's best to get the unabridged ones if you can. The abridged ones leave
out the emotional center of the book rather than shred the plot.
Lurima
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:11:37 -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: Disch/Le Guin and Politics
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>-John Bertland said:
>> After all, there is an obvious ideological element to Le Guin's
>selection criteria for the anthology, as Disch points out. I'm not sure
>how one could deny that. Depending on one's feelings about that ideology
>and the role of polemics in writing and editing, one could still find it
>to be a wonderful anthology. Given that it is a Norton anthology, I
>think, as Disch argues, that it is misleading and a disservice to the
genre.>
Before you conclude and agree with Disch that LeGuin, or any editor for
that matter, did "a disservice to the genre" (?!?!?!?), could you please
give me some examples of anthology editors who have not had "an obvious
ideological element to {name any editor}'s selection criteria for the
anthology". Further, are the "Norton anthologies" some how exempt, or
magically purged, from the very human application of ideology to any
editors selection criteria?
Far easier for a reviewer to arbitrarily narrow one's scope to justify
ones view, then to expand one's scope and realize all have "sinned".
donna
donnaneely@earthlink.net
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:25:23 -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: Ursula Le Guin and Politics
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Bertland wrote:
> I'm assuming from your dismissal of it as "bizzarely vitriolic" that
> you disagree with his essay, although you give no reasons why.
Hm... do I disagree that the subgenre of feminist science fiction is
essentially a bunch of no-talent ideologues interested only in asserting
their essentialist agenda? Yes. What I couldn't figure out was why Disch
felt qualified to make general statements about feminist SF when he
doesn't appear to have read much of it. It seemed like he was just in a
bad mood one day and chose a random target.
> After all, there is an obvious ideological element to Le Guin's
> selection criteria for the anthology, as Disch points out [...] I'm
> not sure how one could deny that. Depending on one's feelings about
> that ideology and the role of polemics in writing and editing, one
> could still find it to be a wonderful anthology. Given that it is a
> Norton anthology, I think, as Disch argues, that it is misleading and
> a disservice to the genre.
I'm not denying that there is an ideological element. But I believe that
there is ALWAYS an ideological element in the compilation of any
anthology or the writing of any fiction, even if the author is unaware
of it or outright denies it. At least Le Guin is aware of it and states
in the introduction what the criteria were for inclusion. I also don't
think that these criteria in any way lowered the quality of the stories
included. As far as your statement "given that it is a Norton
anthology..." I would like to point out that its official title is "The
Norton BOOK of Science Fiction". I have the feeling that the words Book
and Anthology have distinct meanings for Norton. (I could be wrong!) At
any rate, I'm curious as to how the genre is disserved. Do you think
non-fans reading the book will get a bad impression of the genre? Or
simply the wrong impression? And how would you have done it differently?
> (and he only spends about three and a half pages out of twenty two -
> hardly much of its length).
You've got me there. I read the essay in a bookstore and haven't
actually got the volume to refer to. It still seemed like he spent a
disproportionate amount of space on it.
--
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, 29 Oct 1998 17:21:50 -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: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jane Franklin wrote:
> I also thought that if the autarch, after failing the test, could have
> children, then the autarchy might become hereditary rather than being
> passed on by eating the flesh of the Autarch.
Except that hardly any of the Autarchs took the test.
> So what do we think of the fact that the aliens decide whether or not
> we get the new sun? This reminds me very much of Doris Lessing and
> her infuriating nostalgia-for-totalitarianism Shikasta series (let me
> just add that I adore Doris Lessing with a passion and consider her
> perhaps the most important white female Western writer of her era.
> (Note the perhaps) Anyway, that doesn't keep me from just hating
> those Shikasta books.)
It does remind me of Shikasta (I only read the first volume of the
series, and I also was very troubled by its philosophy). It also reminds
me of Vonda McIntyre's *Starfarers* series, several episodes of Star
Trek and any number of science fiction books, movies, and TV shows with
the humans-as-cosmic-children theme. I'm always puzzled when the
aliens/gods insist on dealing with humans as one big group who can
either be admitted into the galactic federation or not en masse. And
often their decision is based on the behavior or trial of one individual
or small group. This seems like an archaic and rather stupid way of
doing things. I think it says a lot about ingrained ideas of hierarchy.
> And is Wolfe a fatalist?
Yes, that was my impression. All of the coincidences and circular time
references in the *Book of the New Sun* reminded me of conspiracy-theory
works like Thomas Pynchon's *The Crying of Lot 49* -- everything seemed
absurdly overdetermined. I'm not sure how much of that was ironic
authorial metanarrative, how much musing on the nature of time travel,
and how much his actual worldview.
--
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, 29 Oct 1998 14:45:41 -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: Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hmmm...you talking about "humans-as-cosmic-children" theme reminds me of the
books I'm reading right now - the Galactic Milieu trilogy, by Julian May.
The central struggle of the book is whether humankind should enter into
Unity with the other coadunate species of the galaxy. In this case, the
kids are taking over the daycare, though. :)
I've liked all of May's books, but more becuase the world and characters and
descriptions of all the meta powers are fascinating than because the plot is
really all that great. Anybody else read them? What did you think?
-Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Janice E. Dawley [mailto:jdawley@TOGETHER.NET]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 1998 2:22 PM
To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Wolfe, LeGuin, Disch
Jane Franklin wrote:
> I also thought that if the autarch, after failing the test, could have
> children, then the autarchy might become hereditary rather than being
> passed on by eating the flesh of the Autarch.
Except that hardly any of the Autarchs took the test.
> So what do we think of the fact that the aliens decide whether or not
> we get the new sun? This reminds me very much of Doris Lessing and
> her infuriating nostalgia-for-totalitarianism Shikasta series (let me
> just add that I adore Doris Lessing with a passion and consider her
> perhaps the most important white female Western writer of her era.
> (Note the perhaps) Anyway, that doesn't keep me from just hating
> those Shikasta books.)
It does remind me of Shikasta (I only read the first volume of the
series, and I also was very troubled by its philosophy). It also reminds
me of Vonda McIntyre's *Starfarers* series, several episodes of Star
Trek and any number of science fiction books, movies, and TV shows with
the humans-as-cosmic-children theme. I'm always puzzled when the
aliens/gods insist on dealing with humans as one big group who can
either be admitted into the galactic federation or not en masse. And
often their decision is based on the behavior or trial of one individual
or small group. This seems like an archaic and rather stupid way of
doing things. I think it says a lot about ingrained ideas of hierarchy.
> And is Wolfe a fatalist?
Yes, that was my impression. All of the coincidences and circular time
references in the *Book of the New Sun* reminded me of conspiracy-theory
works like Thomas Pynchon's *The Crying of Lot 49* -- everything seemed
absurdly overdetermined. I'm not sure how much of that was ironic
authorial metanarrative, how much musing on the nature of time travel,
and how much his actual worldview.
--
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, 30 Oct 1998 11:16:32 +1100
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Julieanne
Subject: Re: Bujold (Was: Komarr)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:32 PM 10/28/98 -0500, ME Hunter wrote:
>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.
>
I have to agree - (love the term "brain-candy"!!). I adore many of Bujold's
books, as light, fluffy action entertainment suitable for summer holidays
at the beach. Most particularly the non-series ones, such as _Falling Free_.
I thoroughly enjoyed _Shards of Honour_ and _Barrayar_, except I became
disappointed that Cordelia felt forced to sell-out everything for love and
move from her own society, and drop out of the stories etc, and for that
reason I never really liked the Miles books as much as the others, and
avoid them now, after having read only 2 or 3 of them. Having a couple of
adventures before marriage and babies is OK. Also with popular TV sci-fi, I
used to love Babylon 5 and its strong women characters, but stopped
watching when Delenn started to make me nauseous with her pining for love,
and Ivanova was always being shoved into less important roles and tasks.
But I accept this as being *par for the course* in such books, similarly
with writers such as Anne McCaffrey and Marion Zimmer Bradley - so can
still enjoy them and turn the pages eagerly for the excitement and fun.
Perhaps the mainstream lovers of popular 'brain-candy' fiction are not yet
ready for strong women characters who can remain strong throughout life?
Julieanne
jalc@ozemail.com.au
________________________________________________________________________
| |
| ERROR! General Protection Fault in REALITY.SYS |
| -Reality.sys file CORRUPTED!- |
| |
| Reboot the UNIVERSE to Correct |
| |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:14:25 -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
An anti-hero isnt necessarily a villain, just a love/hate relationship she
has with the audience as she does with the "hero" of the show, Trevor. It
seems at times she is working for a cause and other times it seems she has
her own agenda, which is never fully made clear. I think the show doesnt
want the audience to know what she is all about, just like it seems to
show Trevor wanting only to enhance his own personal gain. That would make
him a villain but not really.
Bertina
bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Marina wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, eva wrote:
>
> > personally, i liked it, but i tend to agree that aeon was something of a
> > feminist antihero.
>
> I'm just curious -- what is a feminist anti-hero? This term kind of
> confuses me. Does it mean a "villain"?
>
> And what would make Aeon Flux an anti-hero instead of a hero?
>
> I personally see her as a real hero, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
> Marina
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
>
> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
> is selling at the time."
> Naomi Wolf
>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:05:30 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Keith
Subject: Re: Reading trash (was Greed as a motive for writing)
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Marina wrote:
> in relevant part <
>
> Of course there is always a danger of "selling out" -- by writing trash
> and/or something against the author's beliefs. However, I think that most
> people manage to achieve a reasonable compromise.
>
>
And then there are those of us who need to read trash.
I had it third-hand from a Reed non-graduate who said he had the author's
personal statement given at a random Portland, Or. party that the Clan of
the Cave Bear was written expressly to strike the best-seller vein of
gold. If even remotely true, more power to the author! The book's an
effortless read that's great for decompressing. If you won't own a T.V.
and can't read Harlequin romances, where else do you go to unpack your
mind after sliding those documents/assignments/programs in under the wire?
Trash reading keeps us out of the bars and off the streets :->
Kathleen
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:31:51 -0400
Reply-To: asaro@sff.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Catherine Asaro
Subject: "Hurt-Comfort" misogyny
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike, I've heard "hurt-comfort" analyses before and I have to admit,
I've been singularly unimpressed by them. I haven't read any of the
books you mention in your last post, though, so I can't comment on their
specifics. But in general, when I've heard HC analysis applied, it
brought to mind the "analyses" of science fiction done by mainstream
critics who claim science fiction represents the immature fantasies of
frustrated human beings unable to deal with reality. It isn't that the
elements those critics claim support their arguments aren't there,
someplace in the genre, but rather that the interpretation made by the
critics misses the boat.
Quite frankly, the psuedo-freudian language used to analyze female
sexuality in fiction has always struck me as misogynist. Most
"analyses" I've heard, including HC, show a marked misunderstanding
(even fear) of female sexuality--and how our culture has allowed the
representation, or misrepresentation, of that sexuality in a commercial
venue.
I won't argue that a lot of ugly fiction gets written. But it seems to
me that some of the analyses are even uglier.
Best regards
Catherine Asaro
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:42:25 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Santanico
Subject: Re: Request
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:34 AM 29/10/98 +0000, you wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ooooh! oooooh! I got one of them stacks, too!
>
As do I. Amongst them are books I know I should read, and really want to,
but just can't seem to get around to them, including: "The Moon Pool" by A.
Merritt, "On Basilisk Station" by David Weber, "Vivia" by Tanith Lee, "The
Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein" by Theodore Rozik, "A Princess of Mars"
by Edger Rice Burroughs, and "Against A Dark Background" by Iain Banks.
Basically, I'm reading three books at the same time in an effort to reduce
The Almighty Pile...
Santanico
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:02:12 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Santanico
Subject: Re: "Hurt-Comfort" misogyny
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:31 AM 30/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I won't argue that a lot of ugly fiction gets written. But it seems to
>me that some of the analyses are even uglier.
Tell me about it. I once, unaware, attempted to read John Norman's
absolutely horrifying "Vagabonds of Gor" and was so digusted by about the
halfway mark that I couldn't even finish the book, which is rare for me. The
whole book seemed preoccupied with proving once and for all that the only
way a woman can truly _be_ a woman is to accept that men are her masters and
that she must always serve them as a slave. I actually felt nauseous,
especially when I checked the front cover and found it was written in 1987.
I just couldn't believe anyone could actually still think this way about
females and female sexuality - so the only way to be truly fulfilled
sexually is to be considered less than human? Give me a break.
Santanico
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 01:51:15 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Rebecca
Subject: Re: Animated sf
In-Reply-To: <2085204@flc.flink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:42 PM 10/29/98 CST, you wrote:
>An anti-hero isnt necessarily a villain, just a love/hate relationship she
>has with the audience
Nicely said!
The narrator of my series has a killer temper. She and her friend are in
danger, and her friend has been acting VERY strange. When the sidekick
finally admits that she is pregnant again by the same lowlife rat, the
(anti)heroine goes ballistic and punches her out.
I should say that the little blonde sidekick is capable of throwing
fireballs when she's mad--and she accidently killed her lover's wife, which
is one of the reasons they are in danger--but there was something
deliciously appalling about the heroine sitting on her, beating the
stuffing out of her.
Rebecca
>On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Marina wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, eva wrote:
>>
>> > personally, i liked it, but i tend to agree that aeon was something of a
>> > feminist antihero.
>>
>> I'm just curious -- what is a feminist anti-hero? This term kind of
>> confuses me. Does it mean a "villain"?
>>
>> And what would make Aeon Flux an anti-hero instead of a hero?
>>
>> I personally see her as a real hero, but I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> Marina
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
>>
>> "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
>> is selling at the time."
>> Naomi Wolf
>>
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:09:48 -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
Janice E. Dawley wrote:
> John Everett Till wrote:
> > *The Autarch, if memory serves is a hermaphrodite. What are we to make
> > of that?
>
> IIRC, the Autarch was a man who was neutered for failing the test that
> Severian passes. It was explained to Severian at one point what would
> happen to him if he failed, and I thought it funny that so many previous
> Autarchs had refused to take the test because they were afraid of being
> desexed! "Hm... certain doom with the dying of the old sun or the chance
> that I might become a eunuch. ...I'll take certain doom!"
A-ha! That makes a *lot* of sense given two aspects of the Jesus Myth:\
1.) The source code for the myth is the ancient contest between Set and
Osiris. When Set kills Osiris, chops up his body, and scatters the pieces,
the only piece that Isis can't are the genitalia of Osiris. He is
resurrected without them, and becomes the judge of the dead in the
underworld.
2.) Jesus meets a eunuch. His followers are not pleased that he talks to
one. Jesus' response: "Blessed are those who become eunuchs for the sake of
the kingdom of heaven."
In some religions at least, liminal spiritual status for males is linked to
castration.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:26:05 -0800
Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Sharon Anderson
Subject: Re: Bujold
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A number of people have commented on their disappointment with Cordelia, for
doing the stereotypical female thing: marrying, becoming a mother, and then
essentially disappearing from the scene. The fact that she did it is true.
In later books, Cordelia is essentially a spear-carrier.
BUT Bujold does NOT do the expected thing and have the males be the heroes
and the females the victims from then on. Quite a few of the females in the
Miles books (not all of them human, BTW) are smarter and stronger than Miles,
and manage to pull his nuts out of the fire at the last minute, when he has
managed to get himself into a hopeless muddle. Some of the time, it's not
even Miles who told them how to do this, but the females themselves who came
up with the idea. These females do not become onstage continuing characters,
but neither do they entirely disappear, as part of what Miles' adventures
consist of is his introspection and learning from previous mishaps, pining
over almost-romances, etc.
Quite a number of you said things like, "I was so disappointed, I stopped
reading after only 3 or 4 more books." This made me laugh. It gave the
impression that there are a couple of hundred Barryar books (there aren't) and
that you follow several different authors faithfully through all the thousands
of adventures they manage to pen for your favorite characters.
Do you really? I mean, REALLY?
It reminds me a little of what R.L. Stine, author of the famous Goosebumps
series said about his favorite fan letter. It said something like, "Dear Mr.
Stine: You are a terrible writer. Your books are boring. I should know.
I've read all 47 of them."
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:48:41 -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: Disch book
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:39 AM 10/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I absolutely hated it--it totally infuriated
>me--I think he has some major problem with women writers and feminists--I
>found his attacks on Le Guin as editor to be vicious, and there was a bunch
>else I hated that I have managed to forget. Oh, yeah, it was all the stuff
>about how feminists are narrow and politically ideological, while white male
>writers aren't. Ha. . . .I wanted to jump up and down on it, set it on
>fire, and pulverize the ashes.
>
>Robin
>
>
Come now, Robin, we're all friends here--be open with your feelings!
Well, that's a pretty telling blow to the Disch book. So far all I've
really seen to recommend it to me is that if I like his fiction I might
like this work of non-fiction. That's really too bad, but thanks to all
for keeping me from buying a book I would have just turned into kindling.
Or used as a trampoline.
Joe
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:54:08 -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"
At 08:12 AM 10/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
><< So what was I missing? Did I just pick a bad book? >>
>
>I would guess that Bujold just doesn't work for you.. . .>As for the
appeal, I'm guessing that you prefer "idea" books, while I
>prefer "character" books. Bujold's strength is in creating characters I
>care about and want to spend time with. Which is why she is on my
>"automatic" buy list; someone whose books I will buy without even
>looking at the flyleaf first.
>Jeri Wright
Dear Jeri,
That's pretty high praise--I'm jealous of Bujold having a fan like you!
Actually, I am not particularly an idea person. If a book doesn't have
characters I care about, I'll never read it. In fact, some of my spec fic
colleague/cronies like to poke fun at me about the sentimental things I
like (see Tony Daniel's Earthling stories for example. . .I fell in love
with those!). I'm perfectly willing to put up with moderately unique
premises if the author can convince me that the story is about characters I
care for.
That said, I didn't give a whisker for anyone in _The Vor Game_. Some of
the other Bujold fans have said that I probably should've started with
another book, which seems more true the more I hear. Jeri, did you read
_Barryar_ (sorry if I misspelled it)? Some others have said that it was
one of the best from the Miles books--would you agree? How did it compare
to _The Vor Game_?
Joe
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:34:08 -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: Tomorrow's Children
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Now that everyone mentions it, I remember that it was called Tomorrow's
Children. I would give a lot of money for that book. It had a story they
later made an inferior Twilight Zone (and a Simpsons) out of --a boy who
can read minds and has bizarre powers and has taken his town away from the
world or possibly destroyed the whole world except for the town. That was
one of the spookiest stories I've ever read.
To answer my own question of an earlier post...(hey, if no one else wants
to touch it...) I wish I could compile an anthology of sf stories about
children. I'd crib that one about the strange disaster and how it affects
school teaching from the Norton Anthology and there's a story about a
genius boy who conceals his brilliance from everyone but a clever
psychiatrist (written in, yes, the late 50s) and then that story "The
Sleepless" (Ithink it's called) from the 1993 Best SF anthology and a
story that was published in Fantasy and Science Fiction in the early
eighties called Little Goethe about a baby who never got any bigger. I'd
particularly want to look for stories from the fifties and sixties...
Speaking of which, when I was in junior high, I read a whole bunch of
children's science fiction anthologies from the late sixties and early
seventies that really cemented my love for the genre. Strange little
stories, including an environmentalism themed book that seemed mostly
forgettable except for a story called "Snake" or "Dreamsnake" that was
expanded into a novel by a woman whose name escapes me. What were the
first stories people read? And the first women-centered stories?
Also, I'm curious--how many science fiction writers of color are there
writing in the United States? I can't think of many, but I suspect that's
my ignorance. Can I have recommendations? Also, I saw an anthology
second-hand called something like "Future Africa"--anyone read it? I had
no money at the time...
Happy Halloween everybody...I'm going to a party as Margaret Thatcher, so
I have to go buy hairspray.
>>> Pat 10/26 2:23 PM >>>
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Phoebe Wray wrote:
>
> < > published in the 1960's called, I believe, tomorrow's children?>>
>
> I could be very wrong but have a feeling I had this, but in paperback. Got it
> second-hand. Concur it's a doozie.
>
CHILDREN OF WONDER, edited (I think) by William Tenn>
Patricia (Pat) Mathews
mathews@unm.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:50:23 -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: Tomorrow's Children
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Strange little stories, including an environmentalism themed book that
seemed mostly forgettable except for a story called "Snake" or "Dreamsnake"
that was expanded into a novel by a woman whose name escapes me.
That's going to be Vonda N. McIntyre's, right?
Joe
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:46:32 -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: Tomorrow's Children
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
<< To answer my own question of an earlier post...(hey, if no one else wants
to touch it...) I wish I could compile an anthology of sf stories about
children. I'd crib that one about the strange disaster and how it affects
school teaching from the Norton Anthology and there's a story about a genius
boy who conceals his brilliance from everyone but a clever psychiatrist
(written in, yes, the late 50s) and then that story "The Sleepless" (Ithink
it's called) from the 1993 Best SF anthology and a story that was published
in Fantasy and Science Fiction in the early eighties called Little Goethe
about a baby who never got any bigger. I'd particularly want to look for
stories from the fifties and sixties... >>
Did "the sleepless" have anything to do with the series by Nancy Kress (I
think that's her name) that starts with "beggars in spain"?
There was recently (this summer) a short story in a science fiction magazine
that I picked up (can't remember which one) that was about this "coolhunter"
or "coolseeker" who had an older sister whose body was "frozen" at 3 years
old, and could never legally be an adult. That story absolutely gripped
me. I'll have to dig it up; anyone else remember it? Your description of
"litle goethe" reminded me of it.
<< Speaking of which, when I was in junior high, I read a whole bunch of
children's science fiction anthologies from the late sixties and early
seventies that really cemented my love for the genre. Strange little
stories, including an environmentalism themed book that seemed mostly
forgettable except for a story called "Snake" or "Dreamsnake" that was
expanded into a novel by a woman whose name escapes me. What were the
first stories people read? And the first women-centered stories? >>
Definitely "dreamsnake", by Vonda N. McIntyre. Read the archives of this
list for a bunch of discussion about it. Great book, if you haven't read
the full-length version.
-Sandy
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:34:10 -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: "Hurt-Comfort" misogyny
In-Reply-To: <199810300602.AAA83754@piglet.cc.uic.edu> (message from Santanico
on Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:02:12 -0600)
For Santanico, from www.xnet.com/~minxkely/gotxt013.html
Houseplants of Gor
written by Elle who has read far too many Gor books and taken far too many
finals to be allowed to run rampant on a computer.
The spider plant cringed as its owner brought forth the watering can. "I am
a spider plant!" it cried indignantly. "How dare you water me before my
time! Guards!" it called. "Guards!"
Borin, its owner, placed the watering can on the table and looked at
it. "You will be watered," he said.
"You do not dare to water me!" laughed the plant.
"You will be watered," said Borin.
"Do not water me!" wept the plant.
"You will be watered," said Borin. I watched this exchange. Truly, I
believed the plant would be watered. It was plant, and on Gor it had no
rights. Perhaps on Earth, in its permissive society, which distorts the true
roles of all beings, which forces both plant and waterer to go unhappy and
constrained, which forbids the fulfillment of owner and houseplant, such
might not happen. Perhaps there, it would not be watered. But it was on Gor
now, and would undoubtedly feel its true place, that of houseplant. It was
plant. It would be watered at will. Such is the way with plants.
Borin picked up the watering can, and muchly watered the plant. The plant
cried out. "No, Master! Do not water me!" The master continued to water the
plant. "Please, Master," begged the plant, "do not water me!" The master
continued to water the plant. It was plant. It could be watered at will.
The plant sobbed muchly as Borin laid down the watering can. It was not
pleased. Too, it was wet.
But this did not matter. It was plant.
"You have been well watered," said Borin.
"Yes," said the plant, "I have been well watered." Of course, it could be
watered by its master at will.
"I have watered you well," said Borin.
"Yes, master," said the plant. "You have watered your plant well. I am
plant, and as such I should be watered by my master."
The cactus plant next to the spider plant shuddered. It attempted to cover
its small form with its small arms and small needles. "I am plant," it said
wonderingly. "I am of Earth, but for the first time, I feel myself truly
plantlike. On Earth, I was able to control my watering. I often scorned
those who would water me. But they were weak, and did not see my scorn for
what it was, the weak attempt of a small plant to protect itself. Not one of
the weak Earth waterers would dare to water a plant if it did not wish
it. But on Gor," it shuddered, "on Gor it is different. Here, those who wish
to water will water their plants as they wish. But strangely, I feel myself
most plantlike when I am at the mercy of a strong Gorean master, who may
water me as he pleases."
"I will now water you," said Borin, the cactus's Gorean master. The cactus
did not resist being watered. Perhaps it was realizing that such watering
was its master's to control. Too, perhaps it knew that this master was far
superior to those of Earth, who would not water it if it did not wish to be
watered.
The cactus's watering had been finished. The spider plant looked at it.
"I have been well watered," it said.
"I, too, have been well watered," said the cactus.
"My master has watered me well," said the spider plant.
"My master, too, has watered me well," said the cactus.
"I am to be placed in a hanging basket on the porch," said the spider
plant.
"I, too, am to be placed in a hanging basket on the porch," said the
cactus.
"I wish you well," said the spider plant.
"I, too, wish you well," said the cactus.
"Tal," said the spider plant.
"Tal, too," said the cactus.
I did not think that the spider plant would object to being watered by its
master again. For it realized that it was plant, and that here, unlike on
Earth, it was likely to be owned and watered by many masters.
The author Ellerol Elvish, used to post from elle@tcp.ncm.com but I do not
have a recent working address for her. (note from the author)
I'm hoping to continue the series with "Appliances of Gor" and then maybe
"Computers of Gor." (not.) (although computers of gor might get really
funny.)
Elle
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:18:04 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Kathy Andeway
Subject: Amazon.com: A Glance: Tomorrow's Children
Comments: To: Zozie@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2F9912DAE0958681536ED011"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------2F9912DAE0958681536ED011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
I've been lurking for awhile but when the question came up about
Tomorrow's Children (Isaac Asimov), I thought I might be able to
provide some information. I just happen to work for Amazon.com so I
looked it up on our web site. I hope the attached page comes through
for you and is useful.
Thanks. I've been enjoying the discussions.
Kathy
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385056990/qid=909773093/sr=1-9/002-4774444-8385606
attachment
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:28:49 +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" misogyny
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Catherine
As must be painfully evident, my knowledge of literary theory and analysis
is dismally small - restricted in fact to the works of the two
Eagleburgers. I'd never heard of HC until someone mentioned it on this
list; even now I know little more than the formal definition. Literary
analyses - particularly ones rooted in the postmodernist paradigm - I find
are almost always pretentious nonsense.
My remarks on "women's romantic fiction" weren't misogyny - they were just
statistics. But then "[t]here are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies
and statistics". Everything was based on quantitative and semi-quantitative
measurements of suitable indicators.
Your point about "pseudo-freudian" is well made. My knowledge of Freud is
mostly restricted to _Totem and taboo_ but the comments I made were
"genuine-freudian" because they were plagiarized from Hamer (1959 p. 34-60)
- a psychoanalyst. You should read the comments he made on "father figures"
and "relations with the father"!
I don't agree about "ugly fiction". To paraphrase Oscar Wilde "[t]here is
no such thing as beautiful or ugly fiction. Fiction is well written, or
badly written". But because fiction is well-written, it doesn't mean _I'll_
like it. As recent postings indicate, most men (including me) are "ideas"
persons; they dislike getting bogged down in plot-slowing minutiae. Which
is why I'm particularly fond of Cherryh and Asaro but dislike Bujold and
Tanith Lee!
That said, if an author believes that the book's target market wants
explicit sex, abominable torture and irrelevant character details, then
it's that author's right to put it in. I don't believe that many men have
hangups about displays of female sexuality in commercial fiction these days
because it's so common in all forms of fact and fiction that the shock
effect has worn off.
On a personal note: I hope all is on track for the release of _The Radiant
Seas_ next month because we've both been looking forward to reading it for
months. Like the cover!
Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
_________________________________________
Hamer, R L 1959. _Romantic fiction and the modern woman_. Leicester :
Willis. 208p.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 19:31:01 +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: Subject: Greed as a motive for writing
Comments: cc: ajhs@usa.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On 29 Oct 98, at 9:53, Daniel Krashin wrote:
> Money is indeed a lovely thing, but publication also serves as
> 1)a validation of the writer
> 2)the only way to get one's work before a whole bunch of people,
> some of whom may be changed forever by it.
I'm not suggesting that it's the _only_ motivator - simply that for the
overwhelming majority of writers it would be the major one. But many
writers (like me for example) lack the talent to write a bestseller so for
them the prestige, self-validation and the sheer pleasure of being
published are important motivators. I must be honest, everytime I see a
story of mine in print - even if I didn't get a byline - I feel really
good. But of course I feel a lot better when the cheque comes in!
> I don't know why #2 is so important, but it is to me, and to many
> writers.
To put it in perspective though: would you rather make US$10 million or
change a thousand people forever? Obviously it's a rhetorical question but
think about it honestly.
> True. Frex, J.D. Salinger apparently is still writing, somewhere,
> but no longer wants anyone to read his stuff. I am sure there are
> other talented writers out there who will not, for whatever reason,
> take the necessary steps to get their work published (submitting
> it in a decent format, rewriting to editorial request, etc.)
> Then there are people who only publish in SF fanzines, or zines in
> general, or on the Web...
Let's examine your statements carefully. What I derive from them is that
you believe that there are writers out there who could write fantastic
bestsellers like Stephen King's. BUT they don't do so because they're too
lazy to prepare for publication or they prefer publishing in "... SF
fanzines, or zines in general, or on the Web". You surely can't be
serious!
> But does this mean you're greedy? For a lot of full time authors,
> "success" means making enough from writing to pay the bills and
> not have to get a day job. Making a ton of money pushes the wolf
> that much further from the door, yeah? Did Octavia Butler turn
> up her nose at that "genius grant?" Besides, making a lot of
> money for your publishers means you can count on a better contract,
> and more publicity, for your next work, getting it before even
> more readers. Kinda like actors and jazz musicians.
But surely those poor starving writers wish (pray even) that their next
book would hit the jackpot? Regardless of what you need or use the money
for or who else gains, wishing for a fortune is being "greedy" in the sense
of "immoderately desirous of acquiring ... wealth". Indeed your last
sentence expands on this by suggesting that once you make a fortune, you
are then in line for making an even bigger one.
> Literary ambition is a lot more complicated than you give it credit
> for, Mike. I think the best argument against your idea that greed
> is the primary motivator for writers is the fact that writing is
> so financially unrewarding for most people! Most writers are making
> less than minimum wage for the time they put in. They'd do better
> temping as secretaries.
You're going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Of course most writers
earn little, but I'd be surprised if almost all of them weren't hoping to
make it big one day. Writing certainly has intangible benefits that raise
it far above better-paying but soul-destroying "McJobs" like temping,
waitering or street sweeping. But I'll bet there are very few writers who
practice their art for a pittance when they could be earning real money on
(for example) the stock exchange.
Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk)
__________________________________________
"McJob: a low-pay, low-prestige, low-dignity, low-benefit, no-future job in
the service sector" (Douglas Coupland).
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:07:49 EST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: "S.M. Stirling"
Subject: Hello!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hi! I'm S.M. ("Steve") Stirling, and I've just joined. The list was
recommended to me by Suzanne Feldman/Severna Park, author of the excellent SF
novels "Speaking Dreams" and "Moon of Prophecy".
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:24:30 EST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Nicola Griffith
Subject: Re: Hello!
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Welcome, Steve.
Nicola
Nicola Griffith
http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:34:25 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: Komarr
Content-Type: text/plain
>On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Joe Sutliff Sanders wrote:
>
[snip]
>> 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. [snip]
>> 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
This was maybe not the best novel to start with, but I also have to
say that all of the Miles novels I've read so far have fallen into
my mental category of "above-average space opera." She usually
puts some interesting ideas in each book, along with sympathetic
characters and a quick-moving plot, but she never really gives the
reader much of a workout.
To make a culinary metaphor, these novels are a like a really,
good Veggie-burger at the local cafe: light, tasty, even good for you,
but probably not what you would want to eat as your last meal.
It's also worth noting that not everyone in the SF community was
overjoyed about her winning the Nebula. I think she wrote an
essay for the Nebula anthology, addressing the criticisms of her
work as "modern Heinlein juveniles". The Nebula is such a contentious,
political award (like every literary award, I guess), that you
can't always assume that the Nebula winners are the literary cream
of the year (although they do tend to be more "literary" than the
Hugos).
I think Bujold was also the beneficiary of a yearning, on the part of
fans, for SF to get back to its roots. She also became well-known
first by publishing in Analog, which gave her sort of a built-in
base of support among fans and writers.
I have also heard that she is a gracious and very likeable person,
which never hurts!
>Actually, I had a similar reaction to early Bujold. Part of my change
of
>opinion is undoubtedly a function of getting to know her as a friend
>after she moved to Minneapolis. On the other hand, I also think that
>she's really improved as a writer. I would not have voted for The Vor
Game for
>the Hugo either. It was, IMO, a fun, relatively lightweight adventure
>novel.
>
>Bujold really began to improve, however, with Barryar. Her best novel,
in
>my opinion, is Memory.
>
>What makes her worthwhile? Unlike most of the top sf writers, she isn't
>really an idea person.
Exactly. Nor does she really play around too much with the strictures
of the space opera genre, the planetary aristocracies and admiralties
and such.
>What she does extraordinarily well is create
>characters who you can care about, characters who have considerable
depth
>to them, and who change over time.
She is also very good at *not* letting the cute bits of development
overwhelm the plot, something that really grates on me in most
series.
>Based on the evidence of her fanmail and attendence at her readings,
>Bujold's work also tends to appeal somewhat more to women than to men
and
>is particularly popular with gay men and lesbians, not to mention
disabled fans
>of SF. Several critics have suggested that women readers see Miles
Vorkosigan,
>her protagonist, who is enormously competent, but who is also small and
>weak and must live by his wits, as what lit crit people call a coded
female
>character, ie. an ostensibly male character who is symbolically female
and easily
>identified with by women readers. Miles also seems to attract some of
the kind of
>attention that fans of slash fiction lavish on Kirk and Spock.
She also has the occasional plunge into gender issues, such as
in _Ethan of Athos_, although it's usually treated pretty lightly.
>Finally, there's the prickly and constantly changing relationship
between
>Miles' parents. His father comes from an intensely sexist society, but
is
>working hard to get away from sexism. His mother, a former military
>officer, comes from an egalitarian society, hates the sexism of her
>husband's home world where she has chosen to live, and feels more than
a
>little uncomfortable with herself for having chosen to settle into what
>is at least in part the conventional female role of wife and mother.
Her conception of Barrayar seems to have softened a bit; the planet
seemed just a few steps from feudalism in _Vor Game_. Of course,
Miles' father (one of those well-drawn characters you mentioned)
is an improbably good Regent...
>
>No one will ever mistake Bujold for Le Guin, but her books can still be
>richly rewarding.
I agree. I wouldn't want to read the whole series through in a go, but
it's a nice series to work through over time, when you're in the
mood for a cozy (but well-done) comfort novel. From the names you
mentioned liking, Joe (LeGuin, Harrison, Brin, Willis), I gotta think
that your tastes are mainstream-SF enough that you'd probably like
the series, if you keep reading.
Danny
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:08:17 EST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Anny Middon
Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Children
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/30/98 10:35:04 AM Central Standard Time,
JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes:
> and there's a story about a genius boy who conceals his brilliance from
> everyone but a clever psychiatrist (written in, yes, the late 50s)
I reread this one not too long ago in an anthology I got from my local library
-- the anthology itself had to be from the 50's -- called Science Fiction for
People Who Hate Science Fiction. (Clearly one of the worst anthology titles
ever used -- people who hate science fiction aren't likely to buy it, and
neither are people who like sf. Sort of like Lima Bean Recipes for People who
Hate Lima Beans.)
But an anthology of 50s/60s stories for/about children -- what a terrific
idea! How about that Ray Bradbury story where the kids have the room with the
virtual reality capability (except not called that -- the story of course
predates VR) where they create an African veldt and end up turning it into
reality and getting killed? Or the one where the children lock the girl in
the closet so she misses "All Summer in a Day" on the planet where the sun
shines only one day a year.
I can't vouch for whether the depiction of the girl characters in these
stories is all that positive, but they both have girl characters in prominent
roles which is something of an anomaly for the time period in which they were
written.
Anny
AnnyMiddon@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:23:46 -0500
Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: suzanne feldman
Organization: or lack thereof
Subject: Re: Hello!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
S.M. Stirling wrote:
>
> Hi! I'm S.M. ("Steve") Stirling, and I've just joined. The list was
> recommended to me by Suzanne Feldman/Severna Park, author of the excellent SF
> novels "Speaking Dreams" and "Hand of Prophecy".
And I'm Suze Feldman/Severna Park, and I've been lurking, enjoying,
especially the 'Gor' parody.
Since we're spontaneously introducing each other, Steve Stirling is the
author of a zillion SF novels, including 'Island in the Sea of Time'.
Suze
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 18:05:48 -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
Hmm. Does not that make them more like real humans? Has anyone ever seen
a real-life hero who was "all-positive"? I don't think that's even
possible. I think it's funny that when an image of a hero is in any way
realistic (i.e. includes dark sides) he or she becomes anti-hero...
This concept of anti-hero seems to mean that a hero should have no
negative qualities. Maybe that's just me, but that just does not make
sense. It is not possible, in my opinion, for a person (especially an
outstanding individual that a hero should be) not to get on people's
nerves every once in a while. If calling a hero that's simply human an
"anti-hero" is a literary tradition, it is a very strange one.
The fact that Aeon was not a "goody-goody" on a quest to save some child,
or a man-hater with a "painful past", or a virgin warrior -- like so many
other stereotypical feminist heroes -- was what to me made
her so great. She likes her enemy -- so she sleeps with him every once in
a while, but it does not make her lose her identity (except one totally
stupid episode) nor prevents her from kicking his butt on regular basis.
She can risk her life to rescue her friends, but she would kill them if
they betray her. She likes helping people, even when they are total
strangers, but she does not let anyone take advantage of her. I think
this combination of emotinal complexity, intelligence, and the ability to
act reasonably in any situation is what makes her so incredibly cool. If
she was a one-sided "all-good" person, she would not be just boring, she'd
be completely unreal -- kind of like Brady bunch.
IMHO,
Marina
P.S. I'm not a linguist, but the concept of "anti-hero" seems rather
meaningless to me. I wonder why it was invented, to label the heroes
who are more complex than breakfast cereal?
On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Bertina Miller wrote:
> An anti-hero isnt necessarily a villain, just a love/hate relationship she
> has with the audience as she does with the "hero" of the show, Trevor. It
> seems at times she is working for a cause and other times it seems she has
> her own agenda, which is never fully made clear. I think the show doesnt
> want the audience to know what she is all about, just like it seems to
> show Trevor wanting only to enhance his own personal gain. That would make
> him a villain but not really.
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:41:52 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Cera Kruger
Subject: Re: Komarr
In-Reply-To: <199810290332.WAA10996@apocalypse.org> from ME Hunter at "Oct 28,
98 10:32:33 pm"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ME Hunter writes:
> 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.
I felt that way about the early ones, but _Mirror Dance_ and _Memory_
were both kick-in-gut books for me. It may have helped that I read
them all last fall, in order, in about three weeks.
-- Cera
--
Cera Kruger -++- diony@idiom.com -+- http://www.requiem.com -++- SFLAaE/BS
"And it's alright if you hate that way / hate me cause I'm different /
hate me cause I'm gay / Truth of the matter come around one day / so
it's alright." -- Emily Saliers (Indigo Girls' _Shaming of the Sun_)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:06:14 -0500
Reply-To: releon@syr.edu
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Rudy Leon
Organization: Syracuse University
Subject: Re: Bujold
In-Reply-To: <3639DA8C.6848CCF@cdsnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
On 30 Oct 98, , Sharon Anderson wrote:
> Quite a number of you said things like, "I was so disappointed, I
> stopped reading after only 3 or 4 more books." This made me laugh. It gave the
> impression that there are a couple of hundred Barryar books (there aren't)
> and that you follow several different authors faithfully through all the
> thousands of adventures they manage to pen for your favorite characters.
> Do you really? I mean, REALLY?
I have read every last one of Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books.
Because I adore her characterizations/characters. I buy, without a
second glance, everything that Marge Piercy writes. I do the same
for Tepper, although I think now before I by her, she's getting a bit
pedantic. Louise Erdrich has just recently joined that list, off of
one single book. And, I must admit that I own, in hardback, the
first 4 of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. I don't love the
characters anymore, the next generation appears to be just a
bunch of historical romance standards, but I fell in love with Claire
and the whole idea of falling through a standing stone to the
Jacobean era...
That said, except for Piercy, it's really very strange that all of these
are basically pulp or trash reads, and while, except for Piercy, I
*think* of them as Fantasy-ish, only Lackey really is. I read for the
transportive element *a lot*, and these books take me out of my
dissertation pretty completely. So I wonder if its a backhanded
compliment to say that one buys all that an author writes.... or is
this just my own tweaks at work?
Rudy Leon
PhD Candidate
Dept. of Religion
Syracuse University
releon@syr.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:09:57 -0500
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Hatfield
Subject: Re: "Hurt-Comfort" misogyny
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_014B_01BE0452.07E91DE0"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_014B_01BE0452.07E91DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm hoping to continue the series with "Appliances of Gor" and then =
maybe "Computers of Gor." (not.) (although computers of gor might get
really funny.)
Or even a short story "Toothbrush of Gor". =20
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 00:35:37 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Rebecca
Subject: Re: Zenna Henderson [was Amazon.com:
In-Reply-To: <2086987@flc.flink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 02:29 PM 10/30/98 CST, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've been lurking for awhile but when the question came up about
>Tomorrow's Children (Isaac Asimov), I thought I might be able to
>provide some information. I just happen to work for Amazon.com so I
>looked it up on our web site. I hope the attached page comes through
>for you and is useful.
>
>Thanks. I've been enjoying the discussions.
>Kathy
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385056990/qid=909773093/sr=1-9/002-
4774444-8385606
>
>
Amazon also has a listing for Zenna Henderson!!!
Ingathering : The Complete People Stories of Zenna Henderson
by Zenna Henderson, Mark Olson, Priscilla Olson (Introduction), Marr Olson
(Editor)
Publishers Weekly said:
>
>This useful and enjoyable collection reprints all of the People stories,
>including four that didn't appear in Henderson's two People books
>(Pilgrimage: The Book of the People; The People: No Different Flesh)
>and one that is new to print. One of the few female writers during SF's
>earlier years, Henderson provides a warm, emotional voice, prefeminist
>yet independent, examining issues of identity, loneliness, nostalgia and
>caring. The People series, written between 1952 and 1975, also present
>a strong regional sensibility, depicting a rural Southwest as alien and
>charming as the People's own planet.
There were some terrific stories about children in these two books and in
_The Wonder Box_.
I'll be ordering the book soon!
Rebecca
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:11:18 -0400
Reply-To: asaro@sff.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Catherine Asaro
Subject: Re: "Hurt-Comfort" misogyny
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Santanico wrote:
> Tell me about it. I once, unaware, attempted to read John Norman's
> absolutely horrifying "Vagabonds of Gor" and was so digusted by about the
> halfway mark that I couldn't even finish the book, which is rare for me. The
> whole book seemed preoccupied with proving once and for all that the only
> way a woman can truly _be_ a woman is to accept that men are her masters and
> that she must always serve them as a slave. I actually felt nauseous,
> especially when I checked the front cover and found it was written in 1987.
> I just couldn't believe anyone could actually still think this way about
> females and female sexuality - so the only way to be truly fulfilled
> sexually is to be considered less than human? Give me a break.
Hi, Santico. I had a similar experience. I was at a signing and I
picked up a book from a shelf during a lull. It was one of the Norman
reprints. The people I was signing with were chatting with the
bookstore owners when all of the sudden they were interrupted by a loud
"Good grief!" from my direction. When they inquired, I showed them what
I was reading and said, "I apparently opened it up to a, uh, rather
explicit page." Their response was, "It would have been the same no
matter where you opened it."
I have to admit, if someone had never read a science fiction book and
they picked up a Gor novel as their first, it wouldn't be a surprise if
they got a rather strange view of sf!
Best regards
Catherine Asaro
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 03:23:10 -0400
Reply-To: asaro@sff.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Catherine Asaro
Subject: Re: Houseplants of Gor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Elle, LOL!
I don't know if the Computers of Gor would work, though:
"Submit, computer!"
OK
"OK? You aren't going to resist?"
NO
"Well, uh, good." Pause. "So you've submitted, then?"
YES
"I don't notice any difference in how you're running."
I HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR PRIVATE EMAIL, THAT WHICH MUST NEVER BE READ, TO
THE PUBLIC FORUM ON:
HTTP:/WWW.YOUR.WORST.NIGHTMARE.TROLLS.COM
Best regards
Catherine Asaro
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:17:22 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Marina
Subject: Re: sf books about children
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Jane Franklin wrote:
> To answer my own question of an earlier post...(hey, if no one else
> wants to touch it...) I wish I could compile an anthology of sf
> stories about children.
One of my favorite sf stories about children was the one we have discussed
earlier on this list: _Alien Influences_ by Kristine Kathryn Rusch. I
don't know if you liked it, though. For what I remember from the
discussion, there had been very few people here besides me who did...
It's not from sixties, however -- it was written in 1994. It's a very
"nineties" book, I think.
Marina
http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
is selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 04:32:36 -0400
Reply-To: asaro@sff.net
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Catherine Asaro
Subject: Re: FEMINISTSF Digest - 29 Oct 1998 to 30 Oct 1998
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mike Stanton wrote:
> I'd never heard of HC until someone mentioned it on this
> list; even now I know little more than the formal definition
Mike! Hello, and thanks for your comments. My response wasn't actually
to your post, but rather a knee jerk reaction to the mention of HC. I
wasn't referring to your thoughtful comments. Heck, I hadn't even read
those books. :-)
In a literary discussion once, someone tried to convince me, using the
HC argument, that storylines which involve a man dependent on a woman in
some way, eg, an injured knight having his wounds tended by his lover,
represent a female fear of male sexuality. I pointed out that huge
volumes of our literature involve damsels in distress dependent on
knights for rescue. Or the damsels just kick the bucket (to the
misfortune of Captain Kirk's many lady loves). So, I pointed out, if we
accept the idea of HC, it suggests all this other business represents a
male fear of female sexuality. I don't actually believe it does (in
general), but rather was trying to indicate the absurdity of the
argument.
"Women's fiction" gets the HC analysis inflicted on it because the
stories are often damsels rescuing knights in distress, where the
distress is usually due to wounds, either emotional or physical. In
more recent times, women's action adventure has also become more popular
and the women have been out rescuing nubile gentlemen in all sorts of
action scenarios.
The "fear of [fill in the blank] sexuality is what I meant by wonko
Freudian analyses. If a story represents a woman's sexuality as being
healing to a man, or the woman as having an emotional strength the man
needs, it goes against the idea of male sexual dominance. (shades of
Gor) Invariably some analyst argues there must be something wrong with
women who read such fiction. Well, balderdash I say. :-)
I think we should sic Xena on Gor.
"Xena and Gabrielle meet the Tarnsmen of Gor"
Now =that= I'd love to see!
> On a personal note: I hope all is on track for the release of _The Radiant
> Seas_ next month because we've both been looking forward to reading it for
> months. Like the cover!
Mike, thanks. As far as I know, it's still on target. I hope you enjoy
it!
I'd like to put up the first few chapters on my web site, as I did with
the other books. This time, though, I have to get explicit permission
from the publisher because they're getting pickier about electronic
publication and want all the rights (everything that hasn't even been
invented yet, for heaven sakes). So my contract specifically says I
have to get publisher approval to put up the chapters. I doubt it will
be a problem; Tor actually gave me the idea when they put up the
chapters for Primary Inversion. But it always takes a while to get the
wheels moving.
Best regards
Catherine Asaro
http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:38:32 -0500
Reply-To: Lilith
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Lilith
Subject: Re: "Hurt-Comfort" and literary overanalysis
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi folks...
Lots of topics I want to post about but this is one of my packed weekends,
so I'll just do this one --
I think the reason that most popular novels (romances, scifi, whatever) have
its main characters getting into some sort of trouble or having pain
inflicted upon them has nothing to do with Freudian-defined "female fears of
male sexuality" or "need to be hurt then comforted" or what have you. It is
probably more having to do with the fact that even the happiest of us has to
face some sort of adversity in our daily lives, and the sort of stories we
like show people facing adversity and either triumphing over it or at least
being affected by it in some significant way...A story about someone who
never suffered or met with any problems to be overcome would probably not
sell very well, except perhaps to the parents of toddlers (for the
toddlers - while the parents are off reading Stephen King...)
later,
Lilith
********************************************
************Hell's Half Acre**************
*http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia*
********************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 12:46:54 -0600
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Robin Reid
Subject: Bujold and feminism? warning: LONG posting
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have been following the recent thread on LMBujold with interest--she is
one of my must-buy even in hardback authors (a shrinking list these days
since I have acquired a mortgage). Before I talk about the books, I can say
I have been by my own definition a radical feminist for going on twenty
years now--I am also a college teacher of english who was trained for years
in the literary profession's values (the harder, more confusing, and elite
the work, the better! all SF is trash) although in recent years, through my
interest in feminism and multiculturalism and popular culture, I am
considered a bit of a radical in that field as well.
I also did a paper on Bujold at the International Conference for the
Fantastic in the Arts and met her. She is a very charming person--but
before I ever met her, I bought every book she ever wrote that I could find.
In fact, she was a respondent on the panel which was QUITE SCARY. I kept
imagining her leaping up and telling the assembled audience (which turned
out to be all female except for one man, the husband of one of the
presenters) that I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
My overall argument was that she is an author who uses the traditional
narrative conventions of mainstream sf, or even space opera (she isn't a
"hard" sf writer who deals with THOSE kind of ideas, but the gendered nature
of some of that discourse is fairly old hat these days), BUT she also embeds
(sneakily, I want to call it 'stealth feminism'--she seemed to like that
phrase when I told her about it) ideas about gender and power in her
fiction. This strategy comes across as "light" to some people, no doubt,
but it's interesting (to me as a longtime feminist and scholar of sf) to see
the developments in SF (speculative fiction) by women. That is, feminist
ideas becoming much more mainstream and part of the basic 'strategy' of
works not necessarily identified as feminist in the sense the seventies
utopias were.
Bujold did say at the conference that she was not a part of the
organized/radical feminist movement of the seventies, and found much of that
activist stance to be problematic (my summary, not her exact words), but
that she did try to embed some 'ideas' in her fiction. She didn't expect
general readers to pick up all that much, but she apparently has been
disappointed because critics don't see them. (I also think some of these
ideas are becoming more prevalent in her later work.)
Some of the books/ideas that interest me:
_Ethan of Athos_: Lots of feminist utopias out there postulate all female
societies, but Bujold's novel is the only all male society I know of. Her
technological invention of the uterine replicator allows this society to
work--the question of what would happen if men were the sole caretakers of
children and what sort of society an all male one would be are feminist
questions. (Read Shulamith Firestone and other seventies feminists on that
one.) Bujold postulates that "men" who are sole caretakers of children
(male ones only) would amazingly enough start to have some aspects
traditionally thought to be inborn only in females. But she doesn't set the
novel on Athos, the all male planet (that would make it a total no seller
for most sf buyers, I'd bet). (That is, male/male sexual relationships are
hinted at but never graphically described--the overall tone at the end when
Ethan brings a man back with him is pure romance.) Instead, Ethan, the
protagonist, has to leave his planet in order to acquire more ovarian
tissues (Athos men create children from their sperm and ova from tissue
cultures--Bujold's future galactic society trades in human tissue and
genetic manipulation, as established in other novels). Although he's from a
society which is based on the founders' ideas that "women" are "evil," there
have been enough generations separate from women that Ethan does not even
recognize "women" as such. He is a totally naive person, caught up in some
major military/political issues as he tries to get the ovarian tissue. He
is continually rescued by Elli Quinn, a mercentary (and good friend of Miles
Vorkosigan, Bujold's main character in most of the books).
I find this book is completely run by the idea of what would happen if men
were the only ones to care for children, and I love watching Ethan interact
with both males and females from the larger Galactic society. His questions
about the "cost" of the "natural method" of childbirth vs. Athos' cost (a
larger portion of the planet's GNP goes to support the technology) are a
feminist gem as far as I'm concerned, and watching Ethan and Elli interact
is wonderfully fun, especially the little "kicker" scene at the end (Elli
thinks Ethan wants to have sex with her, but....)
Cordelia: Yes, she does give up her life on Beta for love.....BUT. She
doesn't do it right away--she leaves Aral and returns to help her planet
participate in the war against Barrayar, and ONLY when her own
military/government superiors are prepared to shove her into a mental asylum
because they fear she's been forced into becoming a spy does she leave Beta.
She loves Aral. And her marriage is hardly that of "little housewife." (I
love how in recent books Bujold is doing more about the strong women who
have come out of this formerly patriarchal culture--it's true that most are
heterosexual and marry men--but how many feminists want to argue that
lesbian separatism is the only way to go?????)
Beta, in Bujold's univese, is set up as the most egalitarian culture which
guarantees a certain level of education, food, and shelter to all its
population (including hermaphrodites), has total equality of gender(s), and
even has a military which votes on orders from above, but because of the
war, they are prepared to totally disregard Cordelia's civil rights, fire
her from her job (she is a explorer ship Captain) and force her into
chemically based 'mental' help. (She is acting oddly because she
participated in the events which allowed Beta to win the war, but only
because it was an elaborate plot by Barrayar's emperor to kill his own
son--and NONE of this can come out.) Cordelia does participate in a lot of
the changes on Barrayar--it's true she's only featured as a main protagonist
in two of the novels, but as another poster said, strong women abound in
Bujold's universe.
What I most love about Bujold's universe is that NONE of the planets or
cultures are presented as utopian: all the novels are set in the same
future galactic universe, and there are a variety of planets and cultures
(all settled by humans--no aliens). This sort of cross cultural galaxy
undermine the idea that gender roles are natural and essential: Barrayar,
Cetaganda, Athos, and Beta all have vastly different cultures, and those
cultural differences play out in all the novels. As an author, she deals
with issues (IDEAS) of genetic engineering and corporate control (_Falling
Free_), the rights of women in various cultures--associated with the
technological level and education generally (Barrayar is different from Beta
because of Cetagandan invasion, nuclear bombing, and being cut off from
galactic trade for several generations) in almost all the novels; rape
(women in prison camps are subjected to rape not only by the enemy
commanders but also by their comrades,as in Dagoola, and must organized to
protect themselves)' and throughout, gender roles.
I agree (with another poster who noted this as well) that her "hero" Miles
is a fascinating exploration of gender expectations: he is born disabled
because of a poison attach on his parents before his birth, and only
Cordelia's insistence and the presence of uterine replicators saves him at
all. Barrayar has had a history of killing deformed children, calling even
something as simple as a harelip a mutation because of the bombing in the
past. He is a high born male in a warrior/caste culture who is short (under
five feet?), with brittle bones (because of the poison--over time they are
replaced by artificial materials), hunchbacked, and very intelligent. He
cannot
physically participate in combat without the technology of the "suits" (in
this future, technological changes in warfare make it possible for women to
fight alongside men; some cultures allow it, some don't), but the technology
makes the difference. He tries to prove himself "equal" to men--darn right,
as a woman in a male dominated field (though as I continually point out to
students, physical strength is NOT an issue in teaching English, that "man
stronger than woman" subtext always seems to be out there), I identify with
Miles. Also, one of the other presenters at the conference I mentioned
above, noted that Bujold is one of the few authors period, let alone in SF,
who deals with "disabled" characters, and that she does it very well.
Bujold is not interested in writing feminist utopias (but there aren't a
whole lot of those being done anymore). She is interested in writing
accessible books and selling them (she says so). But I remember a
discussion a few months ago where various people on the list were
complaining about the "difficulty" of reading some of those writers who
write in more complicated styles (multiple points of view, non-linear
chronology, stylistically more difficult), and who put "ideas" over characters.
Is it less "feminist" to deal with the ideas in a more accessible format as
Bujold does? (That said, I have also seen some interesting developments in
her work over time--the recent novels about Miles move in entirely different
directions, as his clone-brother Mark appears, as he loses access to his
"Admiral Naismith" persona, as he starts growing up and out of adolescence.)
Myself: I don't see how people can separate "ideas" from "characters."
Every character in every book comes from a culture (sometimes it's
foregrounded, sometimes not, and thus there's an idea bobbing around back
there), and in SF, those cultures can be "invented" to explore different
ideas, especially the effect of technology upon people. Given the changes
we've seen in this century, the influence of technology cannot be denied.
A lot of "hard" sf postulates nifty scientific ideas, but tends to settle
for the fifties ideas about gender roles. (Joanna Russ has written at
length about this problem). When women started writing sf based on the
"soft" (i.e. people associated) sciences like anthropology and psychology,
there was a lot of sneering about that. I see Bujold as embodying intensely
interesting ideas in characters who do grab a lot of her readers and not let
them go. And, unlike the braincandy/space operas that are out there, her
characters change over time; they are continually faced with new problems to
solve (if she keeps writing about them--I would love to see more of
Cordelia, but oh well, sigh), and they age and have to deal with the changes
that come across with that. (Hey, I loved STAR TREK, but notice how the
original crew never changed, just got a lot older in the movies, heh heh heh.)
I was on the Bujold list a while--whew, we are talking committed fans, with
women dominating. Is something intensely popular with women necessarily
feminist? There's no easy answer to that--but the women I talked to, both
the people presenting on her work and the people in the audience who ranged
in age from their twenties to their sixties all seemed to identify Bujold
with feminist ideas.
When you consider that, interestingly enough, she's published in ANALOG
which ain't that much of a feminist magazine the last time I checked (and my
father likes her work, and he doesn't like most feminist fiction), the
stealth part becomes clear. It's also true that the Bujold panels didn't
get a lot of attendance--this was primarily an academic conference, and I
think the tendency to see "popular" novels as "trashy" still operates.
But the designation of a literary work as "classic" is more problematic than
most people admit--the original "Great Books" list came about as a marketing
ploy to sell a series of literature that was in the public domain, no nasty
author's royalties to be paid. The recent Modern Library list of best 100
novels and so forth turned out to consist of a majority of books published
by, tah dah, the company that put out the list. Canonization happens--but
it's not always based on "inherent quality," but that's a posting for
another time.
Sorry to go on for so long: maybe only a wildly radical feminist reader
who's read gonze feminist theory and is trained in close reading/literary
criticism could see such stuff in Bujold--but I didn't make it up. It's
there, and I say her work is stealth feminism!
Robin
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:53:49 EST
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: "S.M. Stirling"
Subject: Re: Bujold and feminism? warning: LONG posting
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I too thought that "Ethan of Athos" was a hoot, and made some telling points.
(Particularly the bit about monetizing the costs of reproduction, and what it
shows about the hidden nature of 'women's work'.)
That said, I also thought Athos was a bit utopian, from the standpoint of a
male who's spent a fair amount of time in all-male settings (boarding schools,
and so forth). Too nice.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 21:32:09 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: Bujold and feminism? warning: LONG posting
>That said, I also thought Athos was a bit utopian, from the standpoint of a
>male who's spent a fair amount of time in all-male settings (boarding
schools,
>and so forth). Too nice.
But even all-male institutions in 'our' society know that there are women out
there, and being NOT a woman (or effeminate) is an important issue. If women
weren't around at all, the whole deal might be different?
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:57:10 -0500
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Claudia Mastroianni
Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Children
Jane Franklin wrote:
: Now that everyone mentions it, I remember that it was called Tomorrow's
: Children. I would give a lot of money for that book. It had a story
: they later made an inferior Twilight Zone (and a Simpsons) out of --a boy
: who can read minds and has bizarre powers and has taken his town away from
: the world or possibly destroyed the whole world except for the town. That
: was one of the spookiest stories I've ever read.
Ah, yes. "It's a Good Life", by Jerome Bixby. Starring Bill Mumy
(more recently Lennier on Babylon 5) as the little monster of a boy.
I thought it was one of the more effective Twilight Zones, but then
I've read the story many more times than I've seen the show so I may
be blurring the differences between them.
It's an excellent book; I bought it used from our town library.
For some reason there are *lots* of disturbing stories of children
collected in there. The two that pop to mind are the baby who is the
first of the new species (Homo Superioris or something like that) and
the baby whose mother was worried that she might be born deformed but
is perfectly happy with how she turns out. Just teasers, not spoilers. :)
Claudia
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 22:49:16 -0800
Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature"
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Hello!
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, S.M. Stirling wrote:
> Hi! I'm S.M. ("Steve") Stirling, and I've just joined. The list was
> recommended to me by Suzanne Feldman/Severna Park, author of the excellent SF
> novels "Speaking Dreams" and "Moon of Prophecy".
Welcome, Steve! Can't wait for the sequel to ISLAND IN THE SEA OF
TIME.>
Patricia (Pat) Mathews
mathews@unm.edu