Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9902C" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:24:11 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: Re: Judith Merril MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am really happy of co-writing fiction, save the one which pulls on covers big names who only deal with introduction or presentation of the book. Completely agree with Todd Mason about friendly cooperation of talents and styles, speeding and make bigger it all; but I feel too much like a functional artifact the "Mr Story Construction/Mr Ideation" formula. Think about the Dragonlance saga, it is a good result in my opinion and show us what endurance can give us to do something with others, I mean nearly_endless cicles you know... But it is just talking about personal preferences: I didn't love too much Nightfall, and I felt disgusted by Thieves World. Anyone knows sites where is possible or want to cooperate in writing a fiction with me? Please fill in a little description of what kind of stuff is offered, thank you. Esperide ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:44:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: FYI: Readings on-line at Skiffy Channel Website "the Dominion" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I hope this is old news to everyone, but anyone with web access and RealAudio can hear Kit Reed, Nancy Kress, Samuel Delany and others at the "Seeing Ear Theater" pages of the "Dominion", the site associated with that cable station. Also available are radio dramas, new and old, of a higher average quality than the station's video presentation. Just a heads-up. (I liked the parenthetical comments Reed makes around her reading at least as much as the story itself.) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:50:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Naughty Question: Madrone MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hey, DM! If this is a book, Catherine Asaro and others will be able to tell you a lot more. To magazines, I tend to send query letters to the non-fiction markets, followed with a phone call if it seems appropriate, and to the fiction markets just the manuscript (and an SASE) unless they ask for more in writers' market listings...which in our field pop up usefully in Janet Fox's SCAVENGER'S NEWSLETTER (now online I believe), GILA QUEEN'S GUIDE TO MARKETS (ditto), the most recent SF CHRONICLE I've seen, etc. Bribes might be slightly, not much, more effective than noisemakers... ---"Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > > Um. Have any of y'all out there taken the leap and sent a work in for > publication? Any good strategies...other than tying bells on it and chucking > it through the publishing house window?? > > Madrone > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:03:58 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: pronouns: Wray--a possible fact MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I believe, but don't have documents at hand to back me, that Steinem et alles at MS. had found/remembered that the term "Ms." had gone back a ways as a formality in business, etc., when the marital status of the female addressee was unknown to the sender. But it was little used, or had become archaic, and so they rescued it (the rescue of the female honorific) and gave it an added meaning in titling the magazine. Apropos of nothing, did you know that Steinem worked with Terry Gilliam on Harvey Kurtzman's early '60s humor magazine HELP!, and since she was the primary scout for their photographic parodies, she probably brought John Cleese in for his work on the magazine? Pythonites should tip their bowlers... ---Phoebe Wray wrote: > > But then but then -- Ms worked. Became acceptable, became preferred... it was > inserted into the language, I think by Gloria Steinheim and others. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:34:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: pronouns - OT linguistic note MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you for the Fish quote. I'm teaching developmental writing just now, and it should come in handy. Sheryl Berg WSU English Department Distinctaque in otia natus -----Original Message----- From: Keith To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pronouns - OT linguistic note >Hi, > >This is just a note to alert listers to a useful reference on word origins >in English - Casey Miller and Kate Swift's classic "Words and Women: New >Language in New Times". Besides being full of lots of useful facts, such >as the copping of the germanic word for humans (mann) by male humans, and >nailing the error one of my snide supervisors made in asking if I wanted >him to call reference books "personuals", its also pretty funny. "The >Great Male Plot" still makes timely reading - and will, as long as writers >such as James Kirkpatrick and George Will are given print-room. > >Oh, okay and another excuse to quote Stanley Fish. On the use of "him" as >generic: > >"It is not the force of feminist theory or even of supposedly theoretical >slogans ...that has made such an impression on everyone, but the >impossibility of avoiding feminist ways of thinking even when you reject >them. Indeed, rejecting them is in some sense what one cannot do: the >man who refuses to substitue "he or she" for "he" and believes that in >doing so he is remaining true to his prefeminist self, is self-deluding; >for the fact that he feels obliged to refuse marks his act as different >from the one he used to perform when he wrote "he" without any awareness >that it was a choice. Feminism "has" him, in the sense of determining his >behavior no matter what he does". > >from _Doing What Come Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of >Theory in Literary and Legal Studies._(1989), pg. 24. Also cited in >"Convergences: Law, Literature and Feminism" (Yale Law Journal, 1990) by >Carolyn Heilbrun and Judith Resnik. > >Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:59:46 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: Re: personal pronouns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I remember an interesting passage from K.K. Ruthven's FEMINIST LITERARY STUDIES: AN INTRODUCTION discussing the "generic masculine" which said: "Exactly how the word 'man', which referred in Old English to people of either sex, came to be at once male-specific and supposedly not so, is still obscure. But in the wake of Anne Bodine's researches into the history of the singular 'they', nobody can doubt that the rule governing the use of an allegedly sex-indefinite 'he' in connection with nouns denoting persons of either sex was made in the eighteenth century by prescriptive grammarians who simply ignored earlier and contemporary English usage, and who did so for reasons quite irrelevant to language study, but certainly conducive to the preservation of male supremacy, and to the replication of that supremacy in the symbolic order of language. The most striking aspect of all this is that because the masculine is aligned so frequently with the universal, men are able to conceive of their own subjectivity as being non-gendered, and therefore wonder why feminists make such a fuss about gender. But because women are not aligned with the universal, they are much more inclined to see themselves as women than men are to see themselves as men. Consequently, as Black and Coward point out, 'one of the major political problems confronting feminism [is] the need to force men to recognize themselves as men'." Could anyone tell me what is now the accepted practice with the third person pronoun (referring to either gender or sex) in scholarly papers? I used to use "she or he" and "her or his" and "herself or himself", but found it quite tedious. I then switched to using "s/he" and "hers/his" and "herself/himself". After reading Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, I wish I could use "per," but am reluctant to, especially after reading this sentence (which angered me) in the book quoted above: "The lunatic fringe [!] proposes alternative common gender or epicene pronouns like 'E', 'hesh', 'po', 'tey', 've', 'xe', 'jhe', 'gen', 'thon', and 'per'...." -Sharon ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:32:31 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: personal pronouns Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > After reading Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF > TIME, I wish I could use "per," but am reluctant to My real difficulty with "per" is that, as I remember it, it was used for subject, object, and as a possessive. I found it awkward for constructions like: "Once she found her roots, her spirits began calling her night and day." which became (if I recall correctly): "One per found per's roots, per's spirits began calling per night and day." I don't know if this is just me, or if this is a side-effect of it just being different. Come to think of it, it might be because the 'p' sound is rather hard and the 'h' sound is much softer and therefore easier on the tongue and ear. -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com Try free *nix: http://www.netbsd.org/, http://www.freebsd.org/, http://www.linux.org/, http://www.openbsd.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:30:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Since subscribing to this list, I have become better acquainted with several writers previously unfamiliar to me, since my take on feminist f/sf was formed in the 1960s/70s, though I have read Cadigan, Goldstein, Slonczewski and others since the emergence of LeGuin, Russ, and Piercy. Some of you seem to claim to have written "hard" sf, but I wonder what you mean by embracing that term. Like sf before it, hard sf has largely been a "boy's club" since the 50s (I agree with Gary Westfahl's inception date), a factoid overdetermined by social and psychological forces. I won't ask you so don't ask me for a firm definition of hard sf (or sf, for that matter), but is it actually a factor in feminist, or even female-written, science fiction? Recent discussions on feminist utopias have emphasized the wish-fulfillment of eliminating men or at least competition with men and women were long excluded by direct and indirect means from study in the sciences. Is that still a major reason, as it seems to have been for Doris Lessing, who claims to admire but not to be able to write "science" fiction? C. J. Cherryh writes space operas, I know, as do a couple of other women writers, but does the science (or technology) drive the story? Hard sf in my view means more than not making scientific howlers; indeed sci-tech components influence virtually every literary element in it. I don't want to get into a gendered semantic argument over the metaphorical dimensions of hard vs. soft, which I think a red herring (sorry for mixing metaphors), rather to entertain discussion on the role of women/feminists in relation to the "hardcore" that I think differentiates sf from fantasy and utopia. For some, the answer may be none; for all of you, I suspect, the answer will also be contingent, since nobody is bound to follow a party line. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:53:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <36C875C9.4EAD4D55@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:30 PM 2/15/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou delivered your message saying >>Hard sf in my view means more than not making scientific howlers; indeed sci-tech components influence virtually every literary element in it. << So, was Asimov's Foundation series "HARD" sci-fi? There science did not drive the story - it was a *soft* science, psychohistory, that drove the stories. Remember that back then psychology was the bastard step-child of science and was ridiculed constantly by *real* scientists. I think the whole hard vs soft sci-fi is a red herring. em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:31:26 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: Re: Women Writing / Segregated education / Sexist Utopias MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------40ABE4D3E3F63F6B39496C67" --------------40ABE4D3E3F63F6B39496C67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Madrone, I am sorry for your name typed mismatch, but I sincerely followed my own sense of beauty about Demetria. I read again your message I was asking about, and now I've understood (well, 3 a.m. aren't a good time to understand straightly!!). Sorry again. Now I've prepared an inventory of my opinions about what you've written in January. Are you sure masculinism is not human nature? I have recently reached it is quite necessary in every culture where males are free of women conditions. But I have hope, nothing is immutable particularly talking about human society. I agree with you, cultural bahaviours do are facades, I better have said consequences, but why do you consider them symptoms? Are you trapped in the dual paroxism shape/content? Maybe any cultural frame can be a corruption from a personal and subjective POV, don't you agree? Are you sure biological root is the right path to discover reality and concrete resolving? Ok, let's start in child education (the old good mother soul awakens), it seems to me you talk too surely about brain developement and micro-macro levels: growing is really only instruction and environment for you? You seem to be very deterministic in your way of thought. I feel you really support your mind travels too much on statistics, I am chilled of this period: < If the environment shapes the anatomy (macro and micro) of the brain, and there is decades worth of research to support this hypothesis, then what effect might this have on how we shape our gods?>. How do you match it with your spiritual insight when you talk about potential choices, our need to wear our personal role in the Being? I don't want to talk about prisons and school statistics, in our private experience we do know too little. I really appreciate the dibate about language. I don't use the word truth, it's too loud and heavy for my mind to bear. Language and every media of communication has to be unclear and impeded, or do you think in some special conditions we can melt and merge with someone other? Ah, one last thing please if you can. Since I am not English, what are CD and AD diseases? And what means LOL? I would be grateful to mail with you, just call me Esperide ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:12:50 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lorie G Sauble-otto Subject: Re: I Who Have Never Known Men In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19990213204413.3d5fb93c@zipcon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I've also just finished the English translation of this book, loved it although it may not be exactly "feminist." The French edition is exellent and easily ordered from several bookstores in Montreal if anyone is interested. I have categorized this work in my head alongside Truismes by Marie Darrieussecq, translated by Ros Schwarz as Pig Tales. I'd love to know if anyone else has read this. Basically a futuristic metamorphosis tale: a woman turns into a sow! because of nuclear backlash. Truismes and I Who Have Never are both very "French," more literary. Lorie Lorie Sauble-Otto Dept. of French & Italian U. of Arizona Tucson, AZ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:24:30 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: personal pronouns In-Reply-To: <36C86092.52EB45E0@cas.et.tudelft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:59 PM 2/15/99 +0100, Sharon Clark wrote: >(snip) >Could anyone tell me what is now the accepted practice with the third >person pronoun (referring to either gender or sex) in scholarly papers? >I used to use "she or he" and "her or his" and "herself or himself", but >found it quite tedious. I then switched to using "s/he" and "hers/his" >and "herself/himself". After reading Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF >TIME, I wish I could use "per," but am reluctant to, especially after >reading this sentence (which angered me) in the book quoted above: (snip) > I agree the "s/he" and so forth, is tedious for writing. Tho' I have no difficulty in using that convention in 'formal' oral communications. Go figure? Perhaps because its easier to say than write:) >From my students I accept whatever convention they prefer to use - It also depends on which form of writing - in fiction, and sci-fi/fantasy in particular, as far as I'm concerned it's 'anything goes':) Whatever it takes to make the story 'work' is OK. That's part of the whole reason for fiction - to 'play' with ideas and words and language. One of the concepts of gender (amongst other things) I played with in one sci-fi story, was the use of 'intimate' language forms, versus 'generic' language. Using gender-specific pronouns, was only socially acceptable, (and expected) in 'intimate' situations, with family, friends and so forth. But in formal writing, essays, media journalism, non-fiction etc - at best: it doesn't 'value-add', and at worst it can detract, confuse, distract the reader from the 'content' of the writing. For myself, I prefer to use the plural form, of 'they', 'their', (including 'theirself') - some purists complain that it is clumsy, and is problematic with classical grammar, (eg: doesn't always 'agree' with verb or tenses) - but I find it no more clumsy than other conventions, and any grammatical inconsistencies are easily removed. If we want to change the language to include non-gender specific pronoun usage - why add 'new' pronouns, or force people to write the long-winded tedious forms, just because the non-gender specific plural form doesn't always agree with the 'classical' subject-verb-object grammar? The general context will usually make it quite clear whether the author is speaking about an individual or group. Besides, a 'plural' form being used to denote singular as well re-inforces the concept of 'inclusivity'. It has additional advantages in that its readily understood by readers of all reading/educational levels, and across the whole spectrum of English-speaking cultures. And without the mental/literary gymnastics of more recent conventions. Lastly, because it is simple and easily understood, it is more likely to be 'adopted-in-practice'. Similar to the convention of 'Ms' which was adopted-in-practice, long before it became 'convention'. Cheers Julieanne [As an aside on the use of 'Ms' : In the mid-70's while still a teenager - I was completing one of my first income tax forms at work one day. I scratched out the usual Mr/Mrs/Miss etc and wrote 'Ms' instead. One of my male co-workers saw it, and explained to me at great length, that doing such things would seriously delay the processing of my income-tax return, and that I should be more careful of not offending the 'powers-that-be'. Interesting though, the following year - income-tax forms started printing 'Ms' as an option:)) ] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:16:05 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 15 Feb 99, at 13:53, Majkia wrote: > So, was Asimov's Foundation series "HARD" sci-fi? There > science did not drive the story - it was a *soft* science, > psychohistory, that drove the stories. Remember that back > then psychology was the bastard step-child of science > and was ridiculed constantly by *real* scientists. Psychohistory - as Asimov presented it - was far from "soft" science. It was an advanced methodology capable of plotting, with fair accuracy, societal trends for 1000 years into the future. Overall, of course, his work was strongly influenced by Oswald Spengler's and Arnold Toynbee's cyclic views of history which, I think, led to the idea that the cycle could be short-circuited to give a desirable outcome early by applying appropriate stimuli at pre-calculated moments. He supposedly based his crude descriptions of the *techniques* on "statistical", "wave" and "quantum" mechanics which were not only important in chemistry (his subject) but were commonly used in science fiction. Many other authors of the era were fascinated by the "cyclic" theories, in some cases, because of the potential for artificially short-circuiting the cycles by applying a small push at exactly the right time. Poul Anderson's _Flandry_ series is a good example as is James Blish's _Cities in flight_ series and even Walter Miller's _A canticle for Liebowitz_. Arguably CM Kornbluth's _The marching morons_ (emphasizing scientific eugenics as it did) is also an example. Using mathematics for predicting and controlling social, economic and political events was common in 40s-50s/60s sci-fi. A E van Vogt's _Voyage of the Space Beagle_ ("Nexialism" and the cyclic view of history) and Robert Heinlein's _Starship troopers_ & _Revolt in 2100 (psychodynamics & psychometrics) are just 3 of many examples. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:08:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------46AE0B6E0FE36CC05F6B9412" --------------46AE0B6E0FE36CC05F6B9412 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit #1. I do not think Asimov ever wrote much "hard" sf, nor did Heinlein. Neither claimed to, either. Asimov was always willing to talk about social sf, but his own knowledge of science was usually channeled into non fiction, at a superficial level. Heinlein invented the term "speculative fiction" and often argued that there was no difference between sf and fantasy, which were just publisher's categories. The late Frank McConnell used to argue that neither f nor sf really existed; it was all narrative. I could push that still more into books like Ulysses and The Waves, where distinctions break down between narrative, lyric, and drama. Some differences are at least operational; I can hardly argue that they are existentially more than reader/writer conveniences. That leads me toward #2, whether the hard vs. soft dichotomy is a red herring. George Slusser so argued at the Eaton Conference, memorialized in an anthology titled Hard Science Fiction. It's an easy out for those who are not up on science and don't intend to be. From a post-structuralist viewpoint, even scientific writing is "text," subject to what we might call "literary" conventions, but what scientific writing concerns has a factual )factitious>?) hardness to it. Hard SF also claims some congruence to "fact" (in so far as Protean science can ever be that) and scientific "laws" (rules, hypotheses, etc.) constrain the design of stars, planets, aliens, ecologies, etc. Hard SF tends to treat both world-building and future projections in terms of scientific limits and technological forecasts. Neither may be ultimately reliable, but neither are they simple wish-fulfillment based on folk traditions we know were never true. I don't argue that hard sf is good literature, another category I won't define, nor would I say that it is the one true "core" of sf, though credible innovations more often start there than in "literary" or "mythological" sf, inherently tied to the past. In my 1962 B.A. thesis defense, I was asked (half in jest) to prove that science fiction exists. I still take the position that it does and also that there is a sizable body of opinion that hard sf exists. As I pointed out in my original inquiry, some women on this list even claim to write (and probably read) what they consider to be hard sf. My question concerns their relationship to that subgenre, which has usually been treated as a male preserve. Majkia wrote: > At 01:30 PM 2/15/99 a Great Blue Heron flying over Sara Anne Bayou > delivered your message saying > > >>Hard sf in my view means > more than not making scientific howlers; indeed sci-tech components > influence virtually every literary element in it. << > > So, was Asimov's Foundation series "HARD" sci-fi? There science did not > drive the story - it was a *soft* science, psychohistory, that drove the > stories. Remember that back then psychology was the bastard step-child of > science and was ridiculed constantly by *real* scientists. > > I think the whole hard vs soft sci-fi is a red herring. > > em hotep > > Majkia ICQ #722007 > > Visit The Portals of Majkia at > http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia > > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* > "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between > past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - > Albert Einstein > *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:39:31 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Samuleson wrote: In my view, it is a "factor in feminst...SF" because that grossly arguable and inexact terminlogy is so frequently used to dismiss or diminish the import of works of SF by women writers. If a man writes it - it is "hard SF", if woman writes it - it is "soft SF" (soft being implicitly of lesser strength and quality of course) is the most likely way it is applied. And you are absolutely correct there is no firm definition, hence no common ground for discussion only endless room for debates of personal opinion, hence another effective instrument in the "How To Supress Women's Writing" toolkit. < Recent discussions on feminist utopias have emphasized the wish-fulfillment of eliminating men or at least competition with men and women were long excluded by direct and indirect means from study in the sciences. Is that still a major reason....> I do not believe that "an overarching reason" autonomously exists and preceeds or proscribes the whim of individual authors choice of topic. I DO believe that overarching societal/cultural conditions dispose authors to consider and mayhap choose topics. For some, the self-identified conditions of oppression under which any author exists may motivate more than one to dwell on the possibilities of varying those conditions in expression of their creative impulse. Writing is a visionary media after all. < ........rather to entertain discussion on the role of women/feminists in relation to the "hardcore" that I think differentiates sf from fantasy and utopia.> How is a naming of a body of work "hardcore" any less a red herring than the use of the terms "hard" vs "soft" ? donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:51:00 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Samuelson wrote: In my view, almost all aspects of intellectual pursuit, and artistic and creative endeavour have been "portrayed" as a _male preserve_ at some time or another. Without that being the reality. You can be assured women and/or feminists have, in the past and do now, write "hard" SF, read "hard" SF and enjoy "hard" SF. Dont know that there is or needs to be a "relationship" beyond that? donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:13:41 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: Twilight Literature/Segregated education/Sexist Utopias/Women Writing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some quick drops to my answerers: Madrone, I'll let you think about all for a while, but expecially reading your reply, I advice you really to carefully consider my notes. See you soon, I wait for your sign. A kind thank to Phoebe and Julieanne, I'm really grateful for your answers and appreciate very much your articles about language, thank you so much! Esperide ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:46:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: "Hard" SF: Female Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, Dave if you do want to talk about what English-tongued scientist authors wrote when scientific academy was male_near_exclusive, I think you wrong the choice of discussion list. I do agree with Majkia about the meaning of old_fashioned term "hard", and both with Anthea I agree, and I don't see it as a contradiction of terms. I give to the word this meaning: "Very realistic aimed fiction in the forms of what is at the moment considered plausible possibilities in wondering the future", restraining the field to science fiction and utopias, and a part of horror if you want. If an author do not want to write a fantasy novel, then he wants to be credible, so his thoughts will be prominently based upon the actual science currents, and if personally he or she doesn't consider social ones at the same level of mathematical disciplines, for the author their POV will be irrilevant. Molding a realistic story has certain needs: if you <> a world the first thing you crash with is chemistry/physics, then biology and geology, and then the human cultural looms (anthropological_mithological_communicational_manufacturing_political_artistic and so on shades). They do offer great amount of hooks to develop what and how you have in mind to tell, I myself experienced it. The width you allow yourself to differ from the contemporary accepted hypothesis is the measure on how you behave hard or soft. So Asimov seems to me too square-minded so I put it on hard stream, and Brunner too because if you accept or provocate the system you have to respect it. In my opinion in female_author writings there is a jewel: whether do the author a high scientific instruction (and we do not have to pretend it), they have surely a good culture and use it to stress social sides in their stories, so narration can teach us something. We have to feel and understand, it's not just an academic play of "what-if?", but a deep communication of a vision, a problem, a suggestion. If you see it in the way of how did the novel catch my individual into something useful to real living, then I must say it is the most hard fiction, and now we can extend our view on fantasy and so on. Esperide ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:18:59 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Majkia Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <001b01be599a$3e8cc0c0$9eb11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Back in the 60s when I was majoring in math and statistics, and minoring in psychology, the attitudes toward sci-fi, and what made *hard* sci-fi, were quite set in stone. Someone said psychohistory was okay as a hard science because it used math and statistics. Well, psych has always used math and statistics but still was not seen as *hard* science. The differences sited then was the difference in predictions based on the field. Physics, math etc, could formulate a hypothesis which could be tested and either proven or not proven. Psychology, OTOH, made more sweeping predictions but could not predict (and probably will never predict) individual behavior. Social sciences were trashed regularly in my classes and were even not considered legitimate *sciences*. Asimov, I believe, was trying to bridge this gap with psychohistory. But at that time, *real* sci-fi, e.g. *hard* sci-fi, among math/engineering/physics students was only those stories that talked about *hardware* and were totally driven by the *Hardware*. Part of the reality back then, was also the blatant sexism. I recently tried to re-read Foundation. I was half way thru the book before a female character was even MENTIONED. And she was mentioned only as a politicians wife who was enamored of a gadget that made her dress change colors. Women were not even seen as part of the background - we were invisible. At any rate, I mention all of this because the constant definition of what is *real* sci-fi, IMO, continues to reflect the ingrained idea that only hardware will shape the future, and not changes to culture and ways of thinking. Yet, looking at how the US has changed over my lifetime, the hardware is insignificant in its impact whereas the social changes are causing major upheaval and driving a near cultural war between those who want to return to the 50s and those of us who want a world where sex and skin color and sexual preference are not used to define or limit or torture others. em hotep Majkia ICQ #722007 Visit The Portals of Majkia at http://www.emeraldcoast.com/users/majkia *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein *~~~~~~<<<<<--;--@@--;-->>>>>~~~~~~* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:59:43 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Organization: Gemini Walker Ink Subject: Re: personal pronouns In-Reply-To: <36C86092.52EB45E0@cas.et.tudelft.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > Could anyone tell me what is now the accepted practice with the third > person pronoun (referring to either gender or sex) in scholarly papers? > I used to use "she or he" and "her or his" and "herself or himself", but > found it quite tedious. I then switched to using "s/he" and "hers/his" > and "herself/himself". After reading Piercy's WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF > TIME, I wish I could use "per," but am reluctant to, especially after > reading this sentence (which angered me) in the book quoted above: > I tried to do it as "editor" of the updated version of the Massachusetts Rape Crisis Training Manual when asked (by our funders, the Department of Public Health) to write about rape as "gender neutral," but then was told (by our funders) that I could not write "the survivor...they," that it was not "grammatically correct." A couple of months later I found an article in Writers Digest that says it has been acceptable for some time now for the very reason I did it. So much for the academic privilege of DPH. But, them that gots the gold makes the rules. ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/12/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:31:36 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: March Events at MG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For Immediate Release For more information contact: Mysterious Galaxy mgbooks@ax.com http://www.mystgalaxy.com 3904 Convoy St, #107 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4747 800-811-4747 619-268-4775 FAX March Events at Mysterious Galaxy Author: Katie Waitman Title: THE DIVIDED Event Time: Saturday, March 6, 2 PM Author: Jewelle Gomez Title: THE GILDA STORIES Event Time: Wednesday, March 10, 6 PM Author: Nancy Holder Title: GAMBLER'S STAR: LEGACIES AND LIES Title: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER: XANDER THE GREAT Title: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER: GHOST ROADS Event Time: Sunday, March 14, 2 PM Authors will discuss their work and host a Q&A prior to signing books. The events are free and open to the public. If you are unable to attend, call or email the store to reserve a signed copy. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:33:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: Call for Papers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Apologies if this has already appeared -- having fallen more than a week behind, I just deleted a bunch of digests... _______ Maryelizabeth, came across this the other day. If it's not been posted to femsf, there might be people there who would be interested. -nalo http://www.sff.net/people/nalo/ Call For Papers For A Collection Of Essays On Postcolonial Readings Of Science Fiction A number of publishers, including Duke and Routledge, have expressed initial interest in this project. This collection seeks to insert science fiction into discussions of the postcolonial and postcolonial theory into discussions of science fiction, by applying postcolonial theory to science fiction texts. This could take a number of approaches, of course: Science fiction as colonial discourse; Science fiction texts produced in the "third world"; Science fiction texts that explore issues of colonization (the moon, Mars, etc.), etc. "Science fiction" should be interpreted broadly, from pulp sci-fi to "literature" to movies to television. While I am interested in papers on a wide variety of topics, from a wide variety of perspectives, I am particularly interested in receiving proposals on some of the following topics: ? Canadian and Quebecois Science Fiction ? Australian Science Fiction ? New Zealand Science Fiction ? Bengali Science Fiction ? Arabic Science Fiction ? African Science Fiction ? Israeli Science Fiction ? Children's Science Fiction ? First Contact stories ? Feminist Science Fiction ? Representations of the Other ? Gender in science fictions ? Indigenous Peoples in science fictions ? Science Fiction by Indigenous Peoples I am also particularly interested in receiving proposals on the work of the following authors: Kim Stanley Robinson, Gwynneth Jones, Ursula K. Le Guin, Suzette Haden Elgin, Mary Gentle, Samuel R. Delany, Robert A. Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Jayant V. Narlikar, Candas Jane Dorsey, William Gibson, Pamela Sargent. The above lists are intended to provoke papers not to restrict them; I am open to postcolonial readings of all kinds of science fiction texts. I would also be interested in receiving proposals on the implications of postcolonial theory for science fiction, or of science fiction for the postcolonial. For further information please contact: Douglas Ivison, Departement d'etudes anglaises, Universite de Montreal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H3C 3J7, e-mail: ivisond@magellan.umontreal.ca, Phone: (514) 278-1126, Fax: (514) 343-6443. Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:59:10 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: Collaborations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain I wish I could be as optimistic as some of the other posters about the effect on SF of these Big Name/little name collaborations. It seems to me that there's something almost colonialist about the whole system. In the best of these BN/ln collaborations, you can sense the joy of the little-name writer at getting to play with in the big-name writer's playground with all of his/her wonderful toys... At worst, you have the spectacle of two writers grimly parasitizing each other, and sometimes looming so large, they displace the work of other original writers. It doesn't seem very healthy for our little ecosystem. More personally about collaboration: I have only collaborated once, with another little-name writer. It was a lot of fun -- instead of playing solos, I had someone to show off to, someone to jam with! Unfortunately, the piece of writing that resulted was far worse than what either of us could have written on our own. That experience has held me back from trying any more collaborations. Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:55:16 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Twilight Literature/Segregated education/Sexist Uto... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/16/99 3:53:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, vmarchioni@IDS.IT writes: << See you soon, I wait for your sign. >> I sent a reply yesterday, hope it got through! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:31:39 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: nicola griffith In-Reply-To: <74e8040f.36c0e68f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:53 PM 02/09/99 -0500, Nicola wrote: >And Sheryl said: > >> If you can't find a book in any bookstore, ASK A CLERK! > >Well, uh, yes. Good point. Why didn't I think of that? (Creeps back to >working on novel, embarrassed.) One good reason to ask a clerk is to make sure they know you were looking for a great book they didn't have. Any independent bookseller worth her salt will love getting this kind of suggestion! And of course we all try to shop there first, right? I was just with some friends on a ski vacation in Telluride, Colorado, and we made a point to check both bookstores in town for Griffith's books (most had read Slow River and we were trying to buy a copy for the one who hadn't.). Neither store had them, but I'm sure that after hearing our enthusiastic suggestions both will soon. Another Nicola fan... Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:05:12 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/16/99 10:18:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM writes: << Any independent bookseller worth her salt will love getting this kind of suggestion! >> There is an article in the morning paper about the independent bookstore Gaia..apparently the owner is having problems keeping the doors open, possibly due to Internet business, and is asking for donations from customers to keep the store going...anybody else hear about this? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:21:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Library & Bookstore offerings (was: Re: [*FSFFU*] nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel wrote: > One good reason to ask a clerk is to make sure they know you were looking > for a great book they didn't have. Any independent bookseller worth her > salt will love getting this kind of suggestion! And of course we all try > to shop there first, right? > > (snip.) This excellent advice applies to libraries, too. If a book you want is not part of your local library's collection, talk to the librarian. The public has a loud voice at most public libraries. If the library cannot (or will not) buy the book, perhaps you may donate a copy for general circulation. Public libraries are weeding collections at a rapid rate these days. Shelf space is dear due to higher volume of library usage without building expansion. Some libraries keep never-checked-out books for only 6 months before tossing them. (ouch!) I have library cards for two local counties and one local city. I check out as many feminist sci-fi and fantasy as I can from all of them. A circulating book survives weeding, and shows those who order books which authors to purchase. I was the weeder for the sci-fi and fantasy section at the tiny library where I work. I had to discard many works that were rarely checked out or hadn't been out for over a year. It hurt. However, without room on the shelves, no additional books can be purchased, including replacements for much-loved titles. Being human, my preference for feminist works persuaded me to keep several titles by "our" authors on the shelf, despite low circulation. I promptly checked them all out. My suggestion is to take moments here and there to request titles at bookstores (independent AND mega-mallsters) and at your local library. Boost library circulation when you can. Such acts make a difference in the life of a book. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:55:20 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Re: feminist book stores In-Reply-To: <6c31cd49.36c9c168@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The women's bookstore in Claremont CA (Wild Iris) tried the same thing a few years back (unsuccesfully), but much later than when it was first suggested to the owner. This was before online bookselling was making an impact. At the time, I blamed a significant part of it on the 7 colleges three blocks away who failed to recomend it to their students, or order books from it. OTOH, when I first moved to Claremont, the only 'regular' bookstore in town was a B. Dalton, and it was having a going-out-of-business sale... Apparently (to my constant amazement) a town with 7 colleges and their assorted faculty (and a retirement home for missionaries!) couldn't keep any sort of bookstore open. Madrone, where are you/is this bookstore? On 16 Feb 99, , Demetria M. Shew wrote: > There is an article in the morning paper about the independent bookstore > Gaia..apparently the owner is having problems keeping the doors open, > possibly due to Internet business, and is asking for donations from > customers to keep the store going...anybody else hear about this? > > Madrone > Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:47:42 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: personal pronouns Comments: To: chuard@earthlink.net In-Reply-To: <199902161451.GAA18535@scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:59 AM 2/16/99 +0000, geminiwalker wrote: > I tried to do it as "editor" of the updated version > of the Massachusetts Rape Crisis Training Manual > when asked (by our funders, the Department of > Public Health) to write about rape as "gender neutral," > but then was told (by our funders) that I could not > write "the survivor...they," that > it was not "grammatically correct." > Reminds me of a car bumper sticker I used to have: It said: " KIDS! Its OK to say NO!" Don't let him put his hands in your pants!" I was occasionally bowled over by guys in car-parks or whatever, who found the use of "he" in that context offensive and sexist - and telling me over, (and over), that women are child-abusers too. Originally I used to mumble something about - he, his etc being "generic" and 'including women'... but I eventually just didn't bother answering:) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:25:48 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <001b01be599a$3e8cc0c0$9eb11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:51 AM 2/16/99 -0500, donna simone wrote: >Samuelson wrote: >science fiction exists. I still take the position that it does and also that >there is a sizable body of opinion that hard sf exists. As I pointed out in >my >original inquiry, some women on this list even claim to write (and probably >read) what they consider to be hard sf. My question concerns their >relationship to that subgenre, which has usually been treated as a male >preserve.> > >In my view, almost all aspects of intellectual pursuit, and artistic and >creative endeavour have been "portrayed" as a _male >preserve_ at some time or another. Without that being the reality. You can be >assured women and/or feminists have, in the past and >do now, write "hard" SF, read "hard" SF and enjoy "hard" SF. Dont know that there is or needs to be a "relationship" beyond that? > Dave - 1962? Thesis? HELLO? I agree with Donna, I'm unconvinced that there is or needs to be a 'relationship' between women and 'hard' SF. Even if we could agree on what 'hard' SF is. Taking the general POV - I'm sure it could be demonstrated that there is a higher ratio of male to female writers, readers or fans of sci-fi generally than in the 'softer' fantasy sub-genre. But this may be due to sexism in the infrastructure of the 'industries' surrounding the sci-fi/fantasy publication world, and not a relationship between women and sci-fi at all. It may also be analagous to the fact of women becoming increasingly visible in the more 'hard core' scientific fields over the last 30 years. As women do move into areas once considered 'male preserves' - the status and reputation of that 'preserve' changes to be considered somewhat less than 'hard-core'.. it's like saying, If a woman can do it, it can't be *hard* or *strong* or *powerful* or whatever masculine-sounding adjective you prefer. As more women become chemists, pharmacists and physicists, engineers and mathematicians, the more these professions lose their 'hard-core' reputation. Similarly with women becoming more 'visible' in sci-fi as writers and readers. Which is yet another tactic to suppress women's writing. And yet another tactic for lowering salaries, and lowering status of the 'hard' scientific professions as well. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:47:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 99 09:25:48 +1100." <3.0.5.32.19990217092548.007beb20@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >As women >do move into areas once considered 'male preserves' - the status and >reputation of that 'preserve' changes to be considered somewhat less than >'hard-core'.. it's like saying, If a woman can do it, it can't be *hard* or >*strong* or *powerful* or whatever masculine-sounding adjective you prefer. >As more women become chemists, pharmacists and physicists, engineers and >mathematicians, the more these professions lose their 'hard-core' >reputation. When I was an undergrad at MIT, biology was "the girl major". This is funny enough if you've read anything anyone said about women in bio twenty years ago. But what was even better--that was just the *science* girl major. I was in engineering; and in that department, chemical engineering was the girl major. I used to say it all the time because it cracked me up. It was so bizarre it didn't even quite manage to be offensive. (The first time I heard it I laughed so hard I had to sit down. I said, "You sound like you're trying to make some clever sarcastic joke about the whole concept of the girl-major! But you're not!" and then I was incoherent for a few minutes.) Go figure. I won't get into the discussion about "what women mean by embracing the label of hard science fiction" cuz I don't understand the issue. Could you repeat the question, sir? jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:43:37 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: info on independent bookstores Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Only vaguely off-topic, but... If you want more information about the plight of independent bookstores in the US, "Holt Uncensored" is a free online column about books and the book industry written by former San Francisco Chronicle book editor and critic Pat Holt. You can subscribe or "unsubscribe" by clicking http://www.nciba.com/patholt.html. Pat's newsletters are entertaining and informative. She doesn't try at all to be objective. I'm sure that Maryelizabeth can also answer many of your questions -- I'm no longer in the business, just a very interested bystander. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:07:29 +0000 Reply-To: chuard@earthlink.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Authenticated sender is From: geminiwalker Organization: Gemini Walker Ink Subject: Re: personal pronouns In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990217084742.007bc4a0@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > At 09:59 AM 2/16/99 +0000, geminiwalker wrote: > > I tried to do it as "editor" of the updated version > > of the Massachusetts Rape Crisis Training Manual > > when asked (by our funders, the Department of > > Public Health) to write about rape as "gender neutral," > > but then was told (by our funders) that I could not > > write "the survivor...they," that > > it was not "grammatically correct." > > > > Reminds me of a car bumper sticker I used to have: > It said: > > " KIDS! Its OK to say NO!" > Don't let him put his hands in your pants!" > > I was occasionally bowled over by guys in car-parks or whatever, who found > the use of "he" in that context offensive and sexist - and telling me over, > (and over), that women are child-abusers too. Originally I used to mumble > something about - he, his etc being "generic" and 'including women'... but > I eventually just didn't bother answering:) > > > Julieanne > > ROFLMAO! oh, it's just one of those if i didn't laugh i'd cry sorta things ... thanx ... ...geminiwalker chuard@earthlink.net To learn more about me, go to: http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard updated 2/16/99 ICQ #27240345 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:48:49 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: <2373800@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:54 PM 2/8/99 CST, Jessie wrote: >I took a look at the last 760 pieces of mail that came through this list. >Here's a breakdown of the top 5 posters: > >"S.M. Stirling" : 113 (15%) >Marina : 43 (6%) >Santanico : 41 (6%) >"Demetria M. Shew" : 39 (5%) >Sophia Hegner : 34 (4%) > While you are analyzing old mail, I have been meaning to track some of the more flameboyant members of the list to see if there is a twenty-eight day cycle in the insults. Maybe you could work up a table for us. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:16:23 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 17 Feb 99, at 9:25, Julieanne wrote: > It may also be analagous to the fact of women becoming > increasingly visible in the more 'hard core' scientific > fields over the last 30 years. As women do move into > areas once considered 'male preserves' - the status > and reputation of that 'preserve' changes to be considered > somewhat less than 'hard-core'.. it's like saying, If a > woman can do it, it can't be *hard* or *strong* or *powerful* > or whatever masculine-sounding adjective you prefer. I'm sure that I'm reading it wrongly, but this statement seems imply that women aren't capable of maintaining the high standards the so-called "hard" sciences require. That's totally wrong. All women scientists would resent the imputation. Women have maintained, and are maintaining, the very highest standards in the sciences. > As more women become chemists, pharmacists and physicists, > engineers and mathematicians, the more these professions > lose their 'hard-core' reputation. That's simply not the case. They may have lost their reputation for being "hard-care masculine preserves", but they certainly haven't shown any deterioration in quality because women have joined them. On the contrary - women have contributed out of all proportion to their limited numbers as male scientists have admitted time and again (grudgingly it's true). To be considered merely *competent*, women have had to work twice as hard and be twice as bright as their male colleagues. Of course there are exceptions - including some very public ones - but proportionately far fewer amongst women than amongst men. > And yet another tactic for lowering salaries, and lowering > status of the 'hard' scientific professions as well. I can't follow your reasoning on this. High quality scientists (male or female) are being paid far better than they've ever been *in fields that are in commercial demand*. The problem for companies is not high salaries, but the desperate, world-wide shortage of bright, innovative researchers in commercially useful fields. One can hire any number of hack scientists (who are, rightly, not well-paid) but really good ones are like hen's teeth. Our company has been trying to recruit good mathematicians and statisticians (especially women) all over the world for nearly a year with only limited success - and we are overwhelmingly a *female* company so there's no bias against women! It's true that pure research is getting the short end of the stick and that this is disproportionately affecting women. But it's a world wide phenomenon and applies broadly across the professions. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:20:13 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Star Trek, Outer Limits and Hard Science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay. Now somebody mentioned a possible definition of hard sf as driven by the gadgetry. Way back in the 60's, when I was in high school, I was a Trekkie. I mean, one of the originals. Before there was a fight between those who were Trekkies and those who were Trekkers (a distinction I'm not sure I've ever understood, or care to). If you are one of those who believe if the media isn't paper, it's worthless, skip this post. I read. Print is almost as necessary af food and air to me. However, I have always believed that what you see up there on the big screen, or on the Glass Teat, is also literature, and also worth discussion. During the original series, I was proud to be a Trekkie. It was a novel series, a novel concept, and I was a teenager. One of the reasons I thought it was such a great series was that it WASN'T driven by the gadgetry. I mean, yeah, all the gadgets were there, but they were a part of the background, a way to help get the message across. The show was issue-driven. I was proud of that. Later, as I grew older, I was ashamed of that. Times changed, sensibilities changed, and it became uncool to have a show driven by issues. Besides, it was off the air. I don't really care whether Star Trek meets a particular individual's definition of hard Sf' but I want to put in my plug and say that I think the very best sf is isssue-driven, includes the gadgetry as part of a way to tell the story, and that thirty (or fifty) years later, the whole thing still holds up -- meaning, among other things, that the gadgets don't look hokey. Submitted for your approval: communicators (cell phones), computers and floppy disks (which still look awfully damn close to the version in the original series), and medical readouts on the bedpost. Okay, so we can't scan vital signs with something that looks like a salt shaker. But we come pretty close to it, with all the things that can read heart rate and temperature and blood pressure when the patient touches them with nearly any part of his/her (per?) body. The hard science in the series holds up surprisingly well, just like Verne's submarines. And the scripts were written by a variety of authors, both women, and men. I doubt if anyone told Dorothy Fontana she couldn't write about a particular concept, because that was hard science. Another series, which was very uneven in both writing and production values, was Outer Limits. In a few of the very best episodes, like Demon With A Glass Hand, the issue and the science formed a seamless whole, and you cannot truthfully say that the story was driven by one or the other. Now, some of the science in that particular episode was fantasy. But the lynch pin on which the entire mystery revolved -- where did they store all those people -- is hard science. Speculative, because some of the technology does not yet exist. But quite a bit of it does. Similarly, THX 1138. It's issue-driven, but part of the issues which drive it are the uses and the morality of the uses of technology. You can't separate them. And for those of you who insist on examples from the print media, I would like to hold up Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. Again, the issues which drive it are the choices that men make about how they are going to use technology as part of the society they are forced to re-build After. Lastly, I would like to applaud the person who posted the remark that points out trying to even bring up the topic of whether or not women can relate to hard science is a sexist attitude, leading to the inevitable sexist division of "if she wrote it, it can't be hard science," which is another way to suppress women writing. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:53:54 -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: The Way We Talk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Rebecca I assuming this is intended as humor. Also assuming you can understand the, unintended on your part, but inherent offensiveness of posting this in our environment here. peacefully offered, donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:20:32 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The problem with most definitions of hard science fiction that I've seen (not here, but elsewhere) is that they are silly because they are illogical. Invariably, the definition starts out with some variation of the following: "Hard science fiction is science fiction based in accepted science." Okay. That's fine. Then comes the bizarre part. Most of the literary analyses on what forms of literature satisfy the above definition are made by people who don't know science. Often they are in literature departments. The analyses then proceed according to how they perceive the "feel" of science, rather than according to actual science. It leads to some bizarre logic. The following is an example. We start with two statements: 1. Most sf that satisfies the definition for "hard" has been written by men. 2. The fiction that those men write often has a particular slant to it. >From those two statements, a third one is "derived" 3. Therefore, only works with that slant satisfy the defintion. The third statement is the silly one. It can't be deduced from the first two. Unfortunately, all too many definitions of hard sf make that leap. What makes it so funny is that the leap itself is contrary to the very quality of the science fiction that the analyses seek to define. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:08:46 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <19990217071623.2333.qmail@www0h.netaddress.usa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:16 AM 2/17/99 MET, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > >I'm sure that I'm reading it wrongly, but this statement seems imply that >women aren't capable of maintaining the high standards the so-called "hard" >sciences require. That's totally wrong. All women scientists would resent the >imputation. Women have maintained, and are maintaining, the very highest >standards in the sciences. I'm sure you are reading it wrongly too:) But that maybe partly my fault for not making my meaning clearer. For a start, I am one of those women scientists you are so gallantly defending from what you perceive (in error), to be some sort of attack. Thy steed is at a full canter, Lady, and at a full quarter-hour tangent to the point of mine honourable Lance! I beseech thee Lady Fair - please ye, remove thy proferred gauntlet! Prithee, I swear upon my Honour as Maiden of the Holy Cabal... - I come in Peace! LOL Julieanne:)) (tongue-firmly-planted-in-Maidenly-cheek) PS: Has anyone read _A Point of Honour_ by Dorothy J. Heydt? ________________________________________________________________ | | | ERROR! General Protection Fault in REALITY.SYS | | -Reality.sys file CORRUPTED!- | | | | Reboot the UNIVERSE to Correct | | | |_______________________________________________________________| ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:21:05 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Question for sending in mss MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Hey, DM! If this is a book, Catherine Asaro and others will be able to > tell you a lot more. To magazines, I tend to send query letters to > the non-fiction markets, followed with a phone call if it seems > appropriate, and to the fiction markets just the manuscript (and an > SASE) unless they ask for more in writers' market listings...which in > our field pop up usefully in Janet Fox's SCAVENGER'S NEWSLETTER (now > online I believe), GILA QUEEN'S GUIDE TO MARKETS (ditto), the most > recent SF CHRONICLE I've seen, etc. > Bribes might be slightly, not much, more effective than noisemakers... > > ---"Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > > > > Um. Have any of y'all out there taken the leap and sent a work in for > > publication? Any good strategies...other than tying bells on it and > chucking > > it through the publishing house window?? > > > > Madrone > > Madrone, what Todd said about magazine. For bokos, I can tell you what I did. I completed the manuscript, then sent all of it to an editor. I always tried to get the name of the editor, instead of sending it to a generic "Dear Madam or Sir." Then I waited. If I didn't hear back in three or four months, I followed up with a friendly, brief letter asking about it. I always included return postage and an envelope or box with the postage affixed. For the cover letter, I basically said, this is my science fiction book, about # words. It is not a simultaneous submission. I hope you enjoy it. Include a description of any professionally published writing credits. It's good to keep the cover letter brief. If there is something that directly impacts on the story about your background, include that. For example, if you are writing a story about a world journalist who spends ten years in Tibet, and you are a journalist who spent ten years in Tibet, then by all means, mention it in the letter. But in general keep it as brief as possible. You can also look for an agent while your ms is sitting on the editor's desk waiting to be read. It's okay to query several agents at a time to see if they would be interested in seeing the manuscript. However! You are far more likely to get a good agent if you already have an offer for the book (which is a bit of a catch-22). Having a mediocre or bad agent doesn't really help, except at places that won't consider the ms at all if it's unagented. Also, making contacts online with writer's groups is helpful. SFWA has a web site with a lot of info. I hope that helps! Good luck. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:19:47 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction Comments: To: asaro@SFF.NET In-Reply-To: <36CA97D5.22B2@sff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:20 AM 2/17/99 -0400, Catherine Asaro wrote: (snip) >Most of the literary analyses on what forms of literature satisfy the >above definition are made by people who don't know science. Often they >are in literature departments. The analyses then proceed according to >how they perceive the "feel" of science, rather than according to actual >science. > Exactly. I have seen similar illogicality in reviews of, (and video hire store classifications), of the Xena and Hercules TV series. Not always, but often enough to be noticeable - Hercules is classified as "Action/Adventure".. whereas Xena is classified as "Fantasy/Adventure".. Go figure? Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:09:28 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: CFP: _Star Trek: Deep Space 9_ Anthology (9-15, 1999) Comments: To: h-pcaaca@h-net.msu.edu, cfp@english.upenn.edu, iafa-l@ebbs.english.vt.edu, SFRA-L@ebbs.english.vt.edu, owner-melus-l@listserver.TAMU-Commerce.edu, sfuf@csd.uwm.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Call for Papers (_Star Trek: Deep Space 9_ Anthology; September 15, 1999) Since the 1997-98 season is the last scheduled one for this series,we are calling for papers for an anthology on ST:DS9. Papers are solicited from any discipline. Analytical and pedagogical papers are welcome. Any topic will be considered, but we are especially interested in issues of: · Ethnicity · ^ÓRace^Ô · Gender · Sexuality · Religion · The Family Deadline for completed papers: September 15, 1999 Length: 35 pages maximum Attribution: MLA parenthetical or endnotes Submit two copies of your completed paper to: Robin Anne Reid Department of Literature & Languages TAMU-Commerce Commerce TX 75429 OR Judy Ann Ford History Department TAMU-Commerce Commerce TX 75429 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:16:26 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: bookstores / plight of the indies / pronouns / posting #s Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" While I applaud the idea of asking for a book one does not find on the shelves in a bookstore, I would caution against what some well-intentioned people have been known to do. Namely special ordering a book and then not picking ti up, thinking that they will then get the book into inventory. This works, but if for whatever reason the book doesn't sell, it actually has a negative impact greater than if it had not been inventoried in the first place. ~~~~~~~~ I second the recommendation of Pat Holt's column.She is very good at laying out the facts in a vigerous and entertaining (one must laugh, or else cry) manner. Perhaps bookstores may yet see a level playing field... ***** Anyone discussed Raphael Cater for gender neutral pronouns yet? ###### Interesting to see the numbers compiled for postings and see evidence that my feeling of being in a classroom dominated by an aggressive male wasn't too off target... Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:41:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG selection period coming up Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It's time to pick some more books to discuss. Of course you should continue discussing Female Man this month, in addition to whatever else you feel like talking about. Upcoming planned discussion books are: March 1 A Fisherman of the Inland Sea, by Ursula K. LeGuin April 5 Jaran, by Kate Elliot In order to allow time for our far-flung members to order discussion books at minimal cost, we will begin the selection process now for May through August. Here is the selection schedule. Don't worry about remembering these, we'll remind you. Thurs. Feb. 18 (tomorrow) Nominations begin Thurs. Feb 25 Nomination period closes Friday Feb 26 Voting begins Friday Mar 5 Voting period closes Monday Mar 8 Next discussion selections announced You can nominate any feminist "speculative fiction" book. Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. If you nominate a short story collection, be sure to specify which stories in particular you think the group should discuss. When you nominate a book, it's important to include a description of why you feel the group should select it. The description will be included in the nominated books list on a web page, to help members decide which books to vote for. Historically, books with the most enthusiastic nominations tend to get the most votes. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in order to keep the price within everybody's range. This unfortunately eliminates out-of-print or very new books, but there's still plenty of great material that qualifies. Please confirm the availability of any title before nominating it by contacting Maryelizabeth at Mysterious Galaxy (or by looking it up on Amazon.com) and include the price in your nomination. Members vote for four books each, and the four books receiving the most votes are read and discussed in alphabetical order by title for the next four months. If multiple works by a single author are nominated, all votes for that author's works are counted together; if the total votes for the author's works are among the four highest, then the book by that author with the most votes is selected for discussion. During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending email to the group with BDG Nomination in the subject line. A volunteer (Petra) will collect the nominations daily during the nomination period and update the nomination list on her web page. Any questions? Email me at jkrauel@actioneer.com. Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:26:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: Library & Bookstore offerings (was: Re: [*FSFFU*] nicola griffith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >My suggestion is to take moments here and there to request titles at >bookstores (independent AND mega-mallsters) and at your local library. Boost >library circulation when you can. Such acts make a difference in the life of >a book. > >Lindy Yes--I have to admit that I work for one of the large chains--when a customer requests a book that we don't have, we either order it for that person (and then the system automatically orders a couple of more copies) or we "short-list" it, which means that our store receives a few copies specifically due to public wishes. Most of the buying and stocking for the large chains is done out of New York, and in general New York decides what people out here in the hinterlands want to read--this is your/my way of letting them know about "little" books that they have decided not to push for some reason or other (the author hasn't lately gone to lunch with the head buyer?). At the least, it gets "our" books onto the shelves where people can see them. BTW, you probably do know that it is the huge chain stores that are mostly responsible for curses like _Don't Sweat the Small Stuff_. That book was a no-go until the author, or his publicist/agent, had lunch with the God of All Buyers, who then ordered several hundred copies for each of the 500 stores in the chain. Each store was then required to place a whole tableful of that little nonbook up in front of the cash registers, where bored customers began to pick them up and purchase them. It wasn't very long before that thing was on the NYT bestseller list. If this works for books like that, why can't it work for really good books? Isn't there some way to fight this, or at least use the same tactics? Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:42:07 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: bookstores / plight of the indies / pronouns / posting #s MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >While I applaud the idea of asking for a book one does not find on the >shelves in a bookstore, I would caution against what some well-intentioned >people have been known to do. Namely special ordering a book and then not >picking ti up, thinking that they will then get the book into inventory. >This works, but (snip) Well, at my monster chain, it doesn't work at all. If someone doesn't pick up a special order, we check to see if it's "modeled," that is, if we're supposed to have any on hand. If the model is 0, we send it right on back to the publisher. So nothing is accomplished except giving UPS something to do. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:23:36 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: The Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/16/99 9:52:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, hathor@FLINK.COM writes: << see if there is a twenty-eight day cycle in the insults. Maybe you could work up a table for us. >> Especially for Stirling. Yeeks, didn't realize I post so much. How embarrassing. Madrone. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:25:45 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: John Woo Subject: Test yourself, How bold you are Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Feel bold enough? Then visit this site: http://www.secrets2success.com//special3720 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:04:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: The Way We Talk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rebecca wrote: > > At 04:54 PM 2/8/99 CST, Jessie wrote: > >I took a look at the last 760 pieces of mail that came through this list. > >Here's a breakdown of the top 5 posters: > > > >"S.M. Stirling" : 113 (15%) > >Marina : 43 (6%) > >Santanico : 41 (6%) > >"Demetria M. Shew" : 39 (5%) > >Sophia Hegner : 34 (4%) > > > > While you are analyzing old mail, I have been meaning to track some of the > more flameboyant members of the list to see if there is a twenty-eight day > cycle in the insults. Maybe you could work up a table for us. > > Rebecca Interesting thought. What I would find interesting is not so much the number of postings by each person, but how many responses are made to a certain poster -- because it seems like the most offensive posts get responded to over and over, whereas ingoring them might take the wind out of their sails a lot faster. Do you see what I mean? Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:11:05 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: immortality/Buffy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I thought of you all when I heard the end of an excellent interview on NPR with cancer researcher Dr.Robert Weinberg-- He said that the thing about cancer cells is that they are *immortal*! Meaning, you can put them in a petri dish and they will keep splitting indefinitely whereas normal cells will split for awhile and then die. Isn't that fascinating? Weinberg's book is called _One Renegade Cell_. And BTW, after that came a commentary on TV dramas -- where the commentator chose BuFFy the Vampire Slayer as one of the top five dramas on television! That sould make somebody here happy... That's all, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:36:34 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: Library & Bookstore offerings (was: Re: [*FSFFU*] nicola griffith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/17/99 11:30:25 PM, Joy wrote: <> Friend of mine had a book published last February. I wanted to buy some copies so I started calling the stores. Small ones didn't have it, specialities didn't know about it, Borders had it but had sold out... (dunno how many copies they had originally)... I started saying, gee Borders is sold out -- where could i get this? to all the book stores...and spread my order around amongst the small ones... Well, not because of this, of course, the book (Be A Goddess by Francesca de Grandis) went into its fifth printing in December. In other words, a good book that one could get behind. I mention it because it was a kind of pr ploy that I worked for a couple of weeks, telling stores about the book and ordering single copies from several instead of multiple copies from one. A little something one can do. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 02:15:04 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "H.H. Thompson" Subject: Re: bookstores / plight of the indies / pronouns / posting ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit << While I applaud the idea of asking for a book one does not find on the shelves in a bookstore, I would caution against what some well-intentioned people have been known to do. Namely special ordering a book and then not picking ti up, thinking that they will then get the book into inventory. This works, but if for whatever reason the book doesn't sell, it actually has a negative impact greater than if it had not been inventoried in the first place. >> I suppose a second post means I'm delurking entirely. I, too, am a bookseller, and as much as I would like to be, not for an independent (but not for some huge volume store, either). I sometimes special order books with the specific intent of handselling them, particularly authors of this list and my comrades at sff.net. I agree that the practice of ordering a book and then not picking it up is particularly insidious. It is detrimental in terms of authors whose ability to publish, say, a third volume in an intended trilogy, is based on whether the sales are *there.* Getting a book onto the shelf is only half the battle -- it needs to get back off the shelf in some other manner than a returns list. I don't know about anyone else here, but I base my purchases on what I read, not on what covers I see; for instance, I'm exceedingly grateful for having seen Nicola Griffith on this list, and not basing my purchase decision for _The Blue Place_ on the cover. Since then, I've handsold a couple of copies, which for where I live is something of a feat. I rescue books from the return list on a regular basis, particularly mass- market paperbacks which suffer the worst fate of all. I've found that it works much better when you buy the books and give them to friends. If it's good enough, and you're good enough to know your friends' tastes, they'll buy more books by those authors. If you're *really* good, you can do the same for total strangers, and you end up doing well in this business. :) Regards, Helen (coming soon to a bookstore near you, if you're in Philly.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:07:55 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit If you credit me with dragging a "red herring" across the trail, I assume you are following a different trail. I switched from "hard" to "hardcore" for its ironic self-deprecating connotation. Originally, I believe "hard sf" took its name from the "hard sciences," which deal in empirical/numerical "proofs." I am reluctant to go past physical and biological disciplines in my application of the term. I have no beef with pursuing a feminist agenda, using sf as one avenue among many. Indeed, I have often been accused of the same (sometimes by traditionalist women). I am not (consciously) trying to exclude, rather to include, women--if they want to be included. You offer a legitimate reason some women prefer not to play the game (as in business, more and more women are starting their own, rather than working for men). Other reasons may include inability to play (perhaps a sour grapes attitude) and interest in other elements sf, fantasy, and utopia may offer. I usually differentiate sf from utopias and other fantasy by its wave (at least) at scientific rationalization. Chip Delany distinguishes it by its assumed distortions of the material world. While most utopian fiction is overtly rooted in desire, even utopian narratives seem to me to stand up better if they attempt to deal (however unsatisfactorily) with stubborn facts (some of them gender-related), rather than simply wishing them away. IMHO there are no firm definitions of anything--in the humanities at least--so I'm not worried about lacking one for hard sf, but I reject the implication that I personally have every sought to suppress women's writing.. It is common knowledge in the history of American SF that writers with literary training and ambitions made significant inroads after the turn of the century. Many of them were women. Many of them--men and women--rejected even the pretense (it was seldom more than that) of recognizing limits posed by science (scientists, if you prefer), some of which certainly stemmed from gender bias (as well as racial and national bias). I'm not looking to pick a fight. My query took off from references some subscribers on this list have made to "hard" sf they themselves have written. I am not looking for what "women want" in general, but for what (if anything) drives some individuals away from "hard sf" at the extreme and "scientific limits" at one of the boundaries between sf and other "unreal estates." donna simone wrote: > Samuleson wrote: > you mean by embracing that term. Like sf before it, hard sf has largely > been a "boy's club" since the 50s.....I won't ask you so don't ask me > for a firm definition of hard sf (or sf, for that matter), but is it > actually a factor in feminist, or even female-written, science fiction?> > > In my view, it is a "factor in feminst...SF" because that grossly > arguable and inexact terminlogy is so frequently used to dismiss or > diminish the import of works of SF by women writers. If a man writes it > - it is "hard SF", if woman writes it - it is "soft SF" (soft being > implicitly of lesser strength and quality of course) is the most likely > way it is applied. And you are absolutely correct there is no firm > definition, hence no common ground for discussion only endless room for > debates of personal opinion, hence another effective instrument in the > "How To Supress Women's Writing" toolkit. > > < Recent discussions on feminist utopias have emphasized the > wish-fulfillment of eliminating men or at least competition with men > and women were long excluded by direct and indirect means from study in > the sciences. Is that still a major reason....> > > I do not believe that "an overarching reason" autonomously exists and > preceeds or proscribes the whim of individual authors choice of topic. I > DO believe that overarching societal/cultural conditions dispose authors > to consider and mayhap choose topics. For some, the self-identified > conditions of oppression under which any author exists may motivate more > than one to dwell on the possibilities of varying those conditions in > expression of their creative impulse. Writing is a visionary media after > all. > > < ........rather to entertain discussion on the role of women/feminists in > relation to the "hardcore" that I think differentiates sf from fantasy > and utopia.> > > How is a naming of a body of work "hardcore" any less a red herring than > the use of the terms "hard" vs "soft" ? > > donna > donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:13:38 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG nomination period OPENED MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jennifer announced the next selection cycle for the BDG yesterday. The BDG nomination period for the May to August books is opened now and closes on Thursday, 25 October. I will compile the nominations, post a summary next Friday (26 Feb.) and create a www page (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4667/bdg_nom.html) with the nominations. Terri Wakefield will handle the voting. The voting period starts on Saturday, 27 February. Jennifer posted the BDG guidelines yesterday (they can normally be looked up at http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/bdg/ . However, that guideline is not yet updated. An updated version can be found for now at http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4667/bdg_guideline.html). I repeat here the points especially relevant for the nominations. Please take special note of the change compared to last time (in CAPITAL letters): Nominated books can include novels or short story collections and can be any flavor of SF such as science fiction, fantasy, utopian fiction, alternative history, etc. but should not include critical essays. IF YOU NOMINATE A SHORT STORY COLLECTION, BE SURE TO SPECIFY WHICH STORIES IN PARTICULAR YOU THINK THE GROUP SHOULD DISCUSS. Books may be recent or "classic", but they must all be available in mass market or trade paperback in order to keep the price within everybody's range. This unfortunately eliminates the out-of-print or very new books, but there's still plenty of great material that qualifies. Please confirm the availability of any title before nominating it by contacting Maryelizabeth at Mysterious Galaxy (http://www.mystgalaxy.com/) (or by looking it up on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/). During the nomination period, you can nominate books by sending an email to the group with 'BDG Nomination' (please !!!) in the subject line. Please include with the nomination the following information: Author, Title. Publisher, ISBN, List Price. For example as follows: Nalo Hopkinson: Brown Girl in the Ring. Paperback (July 1998). Warner Books; ISBN: 0446674338, List Price: $12.99 When you nominate a book, include a description of why you feel the group should select it. The description will be included in the list of nominated books on a web site (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4667/bdg_nom.html), to help members decide which books to vote for. To give you an idea how the nomination list will look in the end as well as give you some ideas what to nominate you can look up the nomination list from last time (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4667/bdg_nom2.html). Please check whether your nomination is included in the nomination list after I announce the next update of it. Last time I unfortunately overlooked a nomination. If a nomination is not accepted for some reason I explain that on the list. If you have any question concerning the nominations, just contact me. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:10:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks for this less contentious response, but it's a very general opinion, one I can verify from a few women students in my classes over the years (I've taught sf courses since 1969). Do you personally, in your own reading/writing, shy away from a book or story someone has called hard sf, or is it immaterial or incidental to what you really seek? Again I'm assuming that amid all your other reading, you return to sf for something you can't get in fantasy, utopia, historical, or contemporary fiction. That sfness I am tying somewhat to science, though I'm quite aware of "life-style" sf, "alternate worlds," "heterotopias" and the like. My own tastes are fairly eclectic, but I do like to see an edge of science in most of my sf. I also like to see good use of "literary" characteristics, though I am often disappointed there as well (by both male and female writers).. donna simone wrote: > Samuelson wrote: > science fiction exists. I still take the position that it does and > also that there is a sizable body of opinion that hard sf exists. As I > pointed out in my original inquiry, some women on this list even claim > to write (and probably read) what they consider to be hard sf. My > question concerns their relationship to that subgenre, which has usually > been treated as a male preserve.> > > In my view, almost all aspects of intellectual pursuit, and artistic and > creative endeavour have been "portrayed" as a _male preserve_ at some > time or another. Without that being the reality. You can be assured > women and/or feminists have, in the past and do now, write "hard" SF, > read "hard" SF and enjoy "hard" SF. Dont know that there is or needs to > be a "relationship" beyond that? > > donna > donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:10:51 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Majkia wrote: > The constant definition of what is *real* sci-fi, IMO, continues to reflect > the ingrained idea that only > hardware will shape the future, and not changes to culture and ways of > thinking. Yet, looking at how the US has changed over my lifetime, the > hardware is insignificant in its impact whereas the social changes are > causing major upheaval and driving a near cultural war between those who want > to return to the 50s and those of us who want a world where sex and skin > color and sexual preference are not used to define or limit or torture > others. Social and cultural changes also happen willy-nilly where material culture is minimal or "appropriate." Many of the social changes in our society which we hate or love were made possible, however, by the material standard of living technology has made possible to us. The hardware is not insignificant. Look at the effects of electronic technology on the Cold War, on surveillance, on propaganda and pornography. In time, however, the hardware (and software) gets taken for granted (like racial and feminist gains) and all but invisible. Our society largely defines civilization by technological level and IMHO we need to use both science and technology for our purposes. We know the other side will use them for theirs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:11:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I'm all for the penetration of women into the hard sciences and I agree that sexist patterns are likely to affect all levels of their representation in hard sf (including the almost obligatory kick-ass heroine in sf by some men who are simply playing for a PC effect). It "may be" any number of things, all of which are speculative abstractions if people won't/can't discuss their own preferences or aversions. Much would-be hard sf concerns hardware manipulated by pasteboard characters whose only function is to advance the plot. Maybe I don't want to believe, however, that the relative paucity of women writers of hard sf is due to what toys they played with as children. Julieanne wrote: > At 05:51 AM 2/16/99 -0500, donna simone wrote: > >Samuelson wrote: > > >science fiction exists. I still take the position that it does and also > >that there is a sizable body of opinion that hard sf exists. As I > >pointed out in my original inquiry, some women on this list even claim > >to write (and probably read) what they consider to be hard sf. My > >question concerns their relationship to that subgenre, which has > >usually been treated as a male preserve.> > > > >In my view, almost all aspects of intellectual pursuit, and artistic and > >creative endeavour have been "portrayed" as a _male preserve_ at some > >time or another. Without that being the reality. You can be assured > >women and/or feminists have, in the past and do now, write "hard" SF, > >read "hard" SF and enjoy "hard" SF. Dont know that there is or needs to > >be a "relationship" beyond that? > > > > Dave - 1962? Thesis? HELLO? > I agree with Donna, I'm unconvinced that there is or needs to be a > 'relationship' between women and 'hard' SF. Even if we could agree on what > 'hard' SF is. Taking the general POV - I'm sure it could be demonstrated > that there is a higher ratio of male to female writers, readers or fans of > sci-fi generally than in the 'softer' fantasy sub-genre. > > But this may be due to sexism in the infrastructure of the 'industries' > surrounding the sci-fi/fantasy publication world, and not a relationship > between women and sci-fi at all. > > It may also be analagous to the fact of women becoming increasingly visible > in the more 'hard core' scientific fields over the last 30 years. As women > do move into areas once considered 'male preserves' - the status and > reputation of that 'preserve' changes to be considered somewhat less than > 'hard-core'.. it's like saying, If a woman can do it, it can't be *hard* or > *strong* or *powerful* or whatever masculine-sounding adjective you prefer. > As more women become chemists, pharmacists and physicists, engineers and > mathematicians, the more these professions lose their 'hard-core' > reputation. Similarly with women becoming more 'visible' in sci-fi as > writers and readers. > Which is yet another tactic to suppress women's writing. > And yet another tactic for lowering salaries, and lowering status of the > 'hard' scientific professions as well. > > Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:12:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Did I actually use the words "what women mean by embracing the label of hard science fiction"? In the simplest terms (I've been trying others) I'm looking for a few good examples of hard sf by women writers. I'm also seeking to verify or disprove a number of hypotheses about why there seem (to me) to be so few. I'm not trying to generalize about all women (most women--and most men--don't read; most men and women who read don't read fiction; most who read fiction don't read sf; most who read sf probably don't read hard sf). Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >As women > >do move into areas once considered 'male preserves' - the status and > >reputation of that 'preserve' changes to be considered somewhat less than > >'hard-core'.. it's like saying, If a woman can do it, it can't be *hard* or > >*strong* or *powerful* or whatever masculine-sounding adjective you prefer. > >As more women become chemists, pharmacists and physicists, engineers and > >mathematicians, the more these professions lose their 'hard-core' > >reputation. > > When I was an undergrad at MIT, biology was "the girl major". This is funny > enough if you've read anything anyone said about women in bio twenty years > ago. But what was even better--that was just the *science* girl major. I was > in engineering; and in that department, chemical engineering was the girl > major. I used to say it all the time because it cracked me up. It was so > bizarre it didn't even quite manage to be offensive. (The first time I heard > it I laughed so hard I had to sit down. I said, "You sound like you're trying > to make some clever sarcastic joke about the whole concept of the girl-major! > But you're not!" and then I was incoherent for a few minutes.) Go figure. > > I won't get into the discussion about "what women mean by embracing the label > of hard science fiction" cuz I don't understand the issue. Could you repeat > the question, sir? > > jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:12:31 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction Comments: To: asaro@sff.net MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I certainly agree that the argument cited is invalid, but I've never heard it voiced or seen it in print, and I've done a good deal of research on hard sf. I've also maintained for years that literary critics of sf are tone-deaf when it comes to science and try to wish it away. In this colloquy I'm also wondering out loud how prominent this same attitude is among subscribers to this list, whose interest is explicitly in feminist fantasy, sf, and utopian literature. Catherine Asaro wrote: > The problem with most definitions of hard science fiction that I've seen > (not here, but elsewhere) is that they are silly because they are > illogical. > > Invariably, the definition starts out with some variation of the > following: > > "Hard science fiction is science fiction based in accepted science." > > Okay. That's fine. > > Then comes the bizarre part. > > Most of the literary analyses on what forms of literature satisfy the > above definition are made by people who don't know science. Often they > are in literature departments. The analyses then proceed according to > how they perceive the "feel" of science, rather than according to actual > science. > > It leads to some bizarre logic. The following is an example. We start > with two statements: > > 1. Most sf that satisfies the definition for "hard" has been written by > men. > 2. The fiction that those men write often has a particular slant to it. > > >From those two statements, a third one is "derived" > > 3. Therefore, only works with that slant satisfy the defintion. > > The third statement is the silly one. It can't be deduced from the > first two. > > Unfortunately, all too many definitions of hard sf make that leap. > > What makes it so funny is that the leap itself is contrary to the very > quality of the science fiction that the analyses seek to define. > > -- > Best regards > Catherine Asaro > http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:40:36 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: BDG Nomination MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I nominate Molly Gloss: The Dazzle of Day. Tor, 1998. Paperback, ISBN: 031286437X ; List Price: $12.95 SF Site Review by Katharine Mills (http://www.sfsite.com/07a/daz36.htm): 'Gloss' science is immaculately crafted, but it is not the focus of the book. The Dazzle of Day is about the impact of momentous events on living people. Yet she is not telling a story about individuals -- something which is emphasised by the fact that we never know the end of anyone's particular tale. Instead, we experience the movement of change and time through the members of an evolving group. Her insight into human dynamics and interaction makes this utterly absorbing, and the spirit and intimacy with which she evokes the ship's Quaker culture is marvelous. Molly Gloss has been compared to Ursula K. Le Guin, and there are certainly similarities. Like Le Guin, Gloss transports us into the ordinary life of people in another place and time, with such a wealth of homely detail that we can almost smell the food cooking and feel the texture of the soil. Here, great occurrences are felt, not only by the pivotal individuals, but by everyone. There are no "little people," no cannon fodder -- even those we glimpse only for a moment are real. This is the kind of book that lingers in memory; at once harsh and sweet, a poetic celebration of humanity's potential for destruction and creation. We are capable of both, Gloss says -- it is our own choices which will make the difference. The Dazzle of Day begins with hope, and ends with hope, expressed with simple and beautiful language. ' This warm praise is not a single occurrence. In SFRevu there is a review by EJ McClure with similar recommedations (http://members.aol.com/sfrevu98/2-5.html#DazzleofDay). I also want to nominate the Tiptree anthology 'Flying Cups and Saucers' but I have yet to check its availability. Petra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:39:06 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Samuelson: I believe I _am_ on the trail of this very red herring. LOL. I do not see them as appreciably different one from the other. You do not define what you mean by 'hardcore'. You do offer a definition of what _others_ mean by 'hard'. Hence, my inquiry - hardcore is different from hard in what way? The evasion of definition is intentional I assume so that your own definition does not become the focus. But if you are to remain so vague than my intuition is certainly the best ground to be standing on in reply. How can your audience respond to the inquiry when it is not clear about what kinds of text you are asking? You want to know if this readership shies away from a kind of text, but dance around definitions. Then you wonder about the variety, tone and scope of response you receive? I do not believe I used these terms or was this limiting in my response. I _did_ say that _writers_ (read 'all' here if you will) will sometimes respond to the oppressive conditions of their lives. As I said women, are already there. To suggest that they need to be or can be included or excluded from any arena of SF reading (or writing) is a false concept in my view. I have reread my comments and do not see where I have done this. Women ARE playing the game. The emphasis of my comments is that women _are_ writing and reading every kind of SF. 'Hard', 'soft' and everything in between. That _is_ the relationship of any readership to any genre of SFF. No need to be offended. No offense was made. I explained that those _definitions_ have been used to do so. I never said that YOU did so. < It is common knowledge in the history of American SF that writers with literary training and ambitions made significant inroads after the turn of the century. Many of them were women. Many of them--men and women--rejected even the pretense (it was seldom more than that) of recognizing limits posed by science (scientists, if you prefer), some of which certainly stemmed from gender bias (as well as racial and national bias).> If you know all of this, then why the question? If you are aware that women have pushed so hard and done so well at writing it, why would you suspect that women shy from reading it? Would women writers be appreciably different from women readers regarding interest in 'hard' SF or any other genre for that matter? Again I say, women and/or feminists have been reading and enjoying "hard SF" always. Whose fighting? You are seeing contention where there is none. What I am challenging is the validity of your inquiry, not the validity of your person. Ah-ha we finally get a partial definition. This is of "hardcore" I presume. But now you have changed the question to completely eliminate the gender basis it had initially. 'Individuals' read what moves them, whatever that happens to be. They are not 'driven' in my view. Books are purchased or selected from libraries by choice, not by force or chase. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:53:21 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now this is becoming its own red herring. I was tramitting no ill will at all in either of my posts David. Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <36CBD96A.27AE762@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > Did I actually use the words "what women mean by embracing the label of hard > science fiction"? In the simplest terms (I've been trying others) I'm looking > for a few good examples of hard sf by women writers. I'm also seeking to verify > or disprove a number of hypotheses about why there seem (to me) to be so few. > I'm not trying to generalize about all women (most women--and most men--don't > read; most men and women who read don't read fiction; most who read fiction don't > read sf; most who read sf probably don't read hard sf). David, If you're looking for good "hard" (ie. scientifcally literate) sf by women, read Joan Slonczewski, Catherine Asaro, and Linda Nagata. Kate Wilhelm has also been doing legitimate hard sf for decades. Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:01:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:12:10 PST." <36CBD96A.27AE762@csulb.edu> Dave Samuelson asked: >Did I actually use the words "what women mean by embracing the label >of hard science fiction"? In the simplest terms (I've been trying >others) I'm looking for a few good examples of hard sf by women >writers. I'm also seeking to verify or disprove a number of >hypotheses about why there seem (to me) to be so few. Yes indeedy. You began your first mail with this: >Since subscribing to this list, I have become better acquainted with >several writers previously unfamiliar to me, since my take on >feminist f/sf was formed in the 1960s/70s, though I have read >Cadigan, Goldstein, Slonczewski and others since the emergence of >LeGuin, Russ, and Piercy. Some of you seem to claim to have written >"hard" sf, but I wonder what you mean by embracing that term. It seems that, like me, many people on this list had no idea what you were trying to get at. Others have given examples of women who write hard SF; I'd add that C. J. Cherryh, who you categorized as "space opera", does inject a fair amount of real science into some of her books. (Maybe this doesn't meet your definition, but hey, you didn't give one. :) I personally wouldn't write hard SF because my field is computer networking, and I hate SF that tries to give specific and realistic examples of futuristic computing, it drives me up the wall. (I love Cherryh, to give the same example, but her computers feel like they're extrapolated from DOS; and let's not even talk about what the word "mainframe" does to my blood pressure.) But that ain't about being a woman at all. *shrug* jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:59:28 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks. I am familiar with Slonczewski and Wilhelm, and someone else reminded me (offlist) of Nagata, who is on my must-read-soon list. Asaro, who is on this list, is not a name I have run into before. Michael Marc Levy wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Dave Samuelson wrote: > > > Did I actually use the words "what women mean by embracing the label of hard > > science fiction"? In the simplest terms (I've been trying others) I'm looking > > for a few good examples of hard sf by women writers. I'm also seeking to verify > > or disprove a number of hypotheses about why there seem (to me) to be so few. > > I'm not trying to generalize about all women (most women--and most men--don't > > read; most men and women who read don't read fiction; most who read fiction don't > > read sf; most who read sf probably don't read hard sf). > > David, > > If you're looking for good "hard" (ie. scientifcally literate) sf by > women, read Joan Slonczewski, Catherine Asaro, and Linda Nagata. Kate > Wilhelm has also been doing legitimate hard sf for decades. > > Mike ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:33:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0EBB728C427D00985019FA65" --------------0EBB728C427D00985019FA65 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you. donna simone wrote: > I do not see them as appreciably different one from the other. "Appreciably is the key. We seem to appreciate different things here. > You do not define what you mean by 'hardcore'. You do offer a definition > of what _others_ mean by 'hard'. Hence, my inquiry - hardcore is > different from hard in what way? The evasion of definition is > intentional I assume so that your own definition does not become the > focus. You assume correctly but I've not been shy about approaching a definition in print (S-F Studies 7/93). > But if you are to remain so vague than my intuition is certainly the > best ground to be standing on in reply. How can your audience respond > to the inquiry when it is not clear about what kinds of text you are > asking? You want to know if this readership shies away from a kind of > text, but dance around definitions. Then you wonder about the variety, > tone and scope of response you receive? Your intuitions are indeed my best guide, since I'm looking more for attitudes than facts at this time. But I'm an inveterate teacher-cum-investigator, looking for what lies behind intuitions and attitudes. > I do not believe I used these terms or was this limiting in my response. > I _did_ say that _writers_ (read 'all' here if you will) will sometimes > respond to the oppressive conditions of their lives. I couldn't agree more. The term "feminist agenda" (as the raison d'etre of this list if you will) was addressed to all and sundry. > they want to be included. As I said women are already there. To suggest > that they need to be or can be included or excluded from any arena of SF > reading (or writing) is a false concept in my view. By "exclusion" or "inclusion" I refer to practices that are (or are perceived to be) sexist including critics' propensities to exclude or include. Delany, for example, has protested the way cyberpunk is discussed in print as if Joanna Russ and other women writers before Gibson had never existed. I would add that Delany himself is often excluded from such discussions. > least--so I'm not worried about lacking one for hard sf, but I reject > the implication that I personally have every sought to suppress women's > writing..> > No need to be offended. No offense was made. I explained that those > _definitions_ have been used to do so. I never said that YOU did so. Again, I had a wider readership in mind. There has been a good deal of contentiousness on this list, some of it quite deliberately offensive, regarding women's "lot" and men's responsibility for it. As a man, I probably can't help but raise some people's hackles. I'm trying not to. > < It is common knowledge in the history of American SF that writers > with literary training and ambitions made significant inroads after the > turn of the century. Many of them were women. Many of them--men and > women--rejected even the pretense (it was seldom more than that) of > recognizing limits posed by science (scientists, if you prefer), some of > which certainly stemmed from gender bias (as well as racial and national bias).> > > If you know all of this, then why the question? If you are aware that > women have pushed so hard and done so well at writing it, why would you > suspect that women shy from reading it? Would women writers be > appreciably different from women readers regarding interest in 'hard' SF > or any other genre for that matter? Again I say, women and/or feminists > have been reading and enjoying "hard SF" always. What I seldom (not never) see is women writing sf that tests (rather than evades) restrictions science seems to impose. During this same period, "hard sf" more or less came into its own, with few women writers seemingly involved. You offer to correct that "seemingly" with a generic declaration. I'm not sure the reading can be documented, but the writing (that is to say, the publishing of that writing) can be. I'm fairly sure there's a push-pull relationship involved, just as there has been in the sciences (on my campus, women are still pretty rare in physics and mathematics, for which both inability and prejudice have been blamed). > > Whose fighting? You are seeing contention where there is none. What I am > challenging is the validity of your inquiry, not the validity of your > person. Fair enough( see above). > anything) drives some individuals away from "hard sf" at the extreme and > "scientific limits" at one of the boundaries between sf and other > "unreal estates."> > Ah-ha we finally get a partial definition. This is of "hardcore" I > presume. But now you have changed the question to completely eliminate > the gender basis it had initially. I think I have only broadened the context. Men write (or get published) both literary and scientific sf. Women don't seem to, and I assume there are good reasons for that, some of which are political (probably they are all political in the broad sense of the word).. > 'Individuals' read what moves them, whatever that happens to be. They > are not 'driven' in my view. Books are purchased or selected from > libraries by choice, not by force or chase. Now I think you're begging the question. I do not believe in total autonomy. We choose to read what we think or feel we will like (or in the case of "good literature," what we may suspect we should learn to appreciate). Why do we think or feel that, except that it felt good before or other people report that it felt good to them or should have done so (canonical literature again, which is supposed to be "good for you"). > > > donna > donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:42:24 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Samuelson wrote: > Men write (or get published) both literary and scientific sf. > Women don't seem to, and I assume there are good reasons for that, > some of which are political (probably they are all political in the > broad sense of the word). What I wonder is why the concept of "hard sf" is so often posed in contrast to sf written by women. You say here that "women don't seem to write scientific sf", a claim I have heard before but never seen substantiated. I would be very interested to see a comparison, for example, of all the books published as science fiction in the span of a year, broken down by sex of author and classification as "hard" or "soft". Something objective rather than a list of books that someone just happened to read because of pre-existing prejudice or time constraints. I have a hunch that there is a strong self-fulfilling prophecy at work: readers expect that women will write "soft" vs. "hard" sf and end up not even paying attention to the scientific details in books written by women or not even reading the works at all. A good example is Nicola Griffith's *Slow River*. The sewage treatment plant in that book is a fascinating extrapolation of current technology and plays a crucial role in the plot -- yet I have heard very few reviewers characterize the novel as "hard sf". I think it qualifies. Of course, it is *also* 1) well-written; 2) a gripping character drama and; 3) a novel of suspense. I don't see how "hard sf" could usefully be defined as science fiction that is *only and exclusively* about science. Do you? -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Mercury Rev -- Deserter's Songs "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:36:22 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: OT Jael, where are you? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Let me share with you a little conversation I overheard yesterday while in downtown Minneapolis, walking through the skyways. That is, down amongst the corporate elite. (Two well dressed business types, early thirties) "She's what I call a skinny fat girl....that is, she's skinny, but she's not real....firm. She'll probably get fat later on." (Mutual sort of nasty snickering laughter) Doesn't this boggle the mind? It's not enough that this theoretical "she" has done the appropriate thing--that is, stayed thin, gotten thin, whatever--she's just not "firm" enough. It really illustrates that it's not the actual literal fact of weight or non-weight that matters; the whole thing is just a set up to make fun of women, to dismiss women, to control women. And it illustrates that as diet obscession sets in, ever-higher standards are created. Beauty inflation. Anyway, I was sooooo tempted to go and smack that fellow. If I could only have channeled Jael for a moment! ("And what if everybody had a ship full of gold?" Nine Turning Mirrors asked Rincewind. "UUh...they'd all be rich?" said Rincewind, feeling that, somehow, this was the wrong answer) (_very_ paraphrased) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:41:06 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <36CBD953.D9F333A@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There seems to be another talkative boy in the class again, teach. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:32:59 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Fwd: Re: [*FSFFU*] "Hard" Science Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The following was sent to me directly, and I chose to post it to the list. I would like to say to everyone here that I am sorry if my remark offended anyone, especially Dave. I was trying to make a joke based on our ongoing dialogue around whether we have a male dominated discussion group here, similar to the ones seen in classrooms. In any case, I see how it could have been interpreted as a mean one-liner, and I do apologize. Sophia >Date: 18 Feb 99 21:16:49 MET >From: Anthea Hartley Stanton >To: Sophia Hegner >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] "Hard" Science Fiction >CC: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk > >On 18 Feb 99, at 10:41, Sophia Hegner wrote: > >> There seems to be another talkative boy in the class again, teach. > >Is it really necessary to make this sort of remark? If you think someone >should stop wasting other people's time, you should approach him or her >directly - just as I'm doing now. > >One-liners are irritating at the best of times - malicious ones doubly so. > > > > > >AJ >Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) >_________________________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________ >Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:13:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <36CC5F10.A497EFC3@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > A good example is Nicola Griffith's *Slow River*. The sewage treatment > plant in that book is a fascinating extrapolation of current technology > and plays a crucial role in the plot -- yet I have heard very few > reviewers characterize the novel as "hard sf". I think it qualifies. Of > course, it is *also* 1) well-written; 2) a gripping character drama and; > 3) a novel of suspense. I don't see how "hard sf" could usefully be > defined as science fiction that is *only and exclusively* about science. > Do you? As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are essentially technoporn. Lots of loving detail about the technical specs, for instance. I like writing that is plot-driven rather than tech-driven, and typically "hard sf" as a category is more tech-driven. Or at least, that was my impression before I started actively avoiding it, so I couldn't say for sure. Certainly, though, that's the perception of it. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Love is plunging into darkness toward a place that may exist. --Marge Piercy, "Night Flight" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:24:16 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------33021383BA71ED4BD039A570" --------------33021383BA71ED4BD039A570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for reminding me how my metaphor got away from me ("embracing" indeed). I previously mentioned Cherryh as writing quasi-hard sf (as well as unabashed fantasy). Computing is a beautiful case in point for how sf gets it all wrong in projecting futures. Slipsticks were still the rage for computing as late as the 50s, though Murry Leinster had humanized a "logic" twenty years earlier. Gibson's vision seems to be most popular, but it has little to do with computers I know (I'm only an end-user, not even an Alpha-tester). SF often gets the science wrong, even if it looked right at the time of origin. Even supposedly "hard" sf has lots of blind spots, conventions, or shortcuts like faster-than-light travel, breathable atmospheres, edible food from different chemistries, and universal translators. Although he thinks (as I do) that he writes hard sf, Greg Benford has called it a class with no examples (like intelligent extraterrestrials), if only because some fantasy is needed to separate it from contemporary realism (as illustrated by his Timescape). Perhaps it is only a goal or an ideal continually vanishing into the future, but I don't think it is only a will-o'-the-wisp. Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Dave Samuelson asked: > > >Did I actually use the words "what women mean by embracing the label > >of hard science fiction"? In the simplest terms (I've been trying > >others) I'm looking for a few good examples of hard sf by women > >writers. I'm also seeking to verify or disprove a number of > >hypotheses about why there seem (to me) to be so few. > > Yes indeedy. You began your first mail with this: > > >Since subscribing to this list, I have become better acquainted with > >several writers previously unfamiliar to me, since my take on > >feminist f/sf was formed in the 1960s/70s, though I have read > >Cadigan, Goldstein, Slonczewski and others since the emergence of > >LeGuin, Russ, and Piercy. Some of you seem to claim to have written > >"hard" sf, but I wonder what you mean by embracing that term. > > It seems that, like me, many people on this list had no idea what you > were trying to get at. Others have given examples of women who write > hard SF; I'd add that C. J. Cherryh, who you categorized as "space > opera", does inject a fair amount of real science into some of her > books. (Maybe this doesn't meet your definition, but hey, you didn't > give one. :) > > I personally wouldn't write hard SF because my field is computer > networking, and I hate SF that tries to give specific and realistic > examples of futuristic computing, it drives me up the wall. (I love > Cherryh, to give the same example, but her computers feel like they're > extrapolated from DOS; and let's not even talk about what the word > "mainframe" does to my blood pressure.) But that ain't about being a > woman at all. *shrug* > > jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:30:49 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you. That's exactly the kind of response I was hoping for, helping me to reorient some of my thinking. I'm sorry if some people see me as hogging the line, but I assumed dialogue was the purpose of listservs, and I had hoped the issue was of some relevance to the list's purpose. "Janice E. Dawley" wrote: > Dave Samuelson wrote: > > Men write (or get published) both literary and scientific sf. > > Women don't seem to, and I assume there are good reasons for that, > > some of which are political (probably they are all political in the > > broad sense of the word). > > What I wonder is why the concept of "hard sf" is so often posed in > contrast to sf written by women. You say here that "women don't seem to > write scientific sf", a claim I have heard before but never seen > substantiated. I would be very interested to see a comparison, for > example, of all the books published as science fiction in the span of a > year, broken down by sex of author and classification as "hard" or > "soft". Something objective rather than a list of books that someone > just happened to read because of pre-existing prejudice or time > constraints. I have a hunch that there is a strong self-fulfilling > prophecy at work: readers expect that women will write "soft" vs. "hard" > sf and end up not even paying attention to the scientific details in > books written by women or not even reading the works at all. > > A good example is Nicola Griffith's *Slow River*. The sewage treatment > plant in that book is a fascinating extrapolation of current technology > and plays a crucial role in the plot -- yet I have heard very few > reviewers characterize the novel as "hard sf". I think it qualifies. Of > course, it is *also* 1) well-written; 2) a gripping character drama and; > 3) a novel of suspense. I don't see how "hard sf" could usefully be > defined as science fiction that is *only and exclusively* about science. > Do you? > > -- > Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT > http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ > Listening to: Mercury Rev -- Deserter's Songs > "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:15:32 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [*FSFFU*] "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sophia Hegner wrote: >> >>> There seems to be another talkative boy in the class again, teach. to which Anthea Hartley Stanton responded >>Is it really necessary to make this sort of remark? If you think someone >>should stop wasting other people's time, you should approach him or her >>directly - just as I'm doing now. Sometimes one wants to check out one's perception that this is in fact the case, or whether one might be over-reacting or misinterpreting, rather than immediately going off and blowing up at the person involved. In fact, I think I'd feel more aggrieved at a personal slag-off than an attack on-list, where the matter is open for cooler or dissenting minds to intervene. Others may feel differently. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:18:04 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: Fwd: Re: [*FSFFU*] "Hard" Science Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/99 10:20:49 PM, Lesleyu wrote: <> Second the motion! We seem to lack playfulness on this list. Pity. lightly lightly phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:00:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Praise (again) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janice dearheart, For this and every other thing you ever post, you are a goddess of common sense and clear thinking. Thank you. I have been saving a few of your posts on LeGuin intending to write to you and encourage you to do more public work on LeGuin as an independent scholar perhaps? Or mayhap you already do? Your knowledge of LeGuin is as comprehensive and thorough as any academic I have ever read. And goodness knows there is not a woman author out there that has been written on _too_ much. I am sure the work that you do each day is highly valued. But personally I would so love to hear ever more of your voice knifing through the incestuous annals of academia - independently. Hope my "dust up" with Stirling did not put you off my irascible nature. Have you read the new Tiptree winner? Is not Raphael Carter one that you touted on your web page? That is how I discovered hir at least. Trust you are well by virtue of your continued presence here, with affection, donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:13:08 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So the rest of us have been wasting our time????????? Because you knew the right answer all along?????? Makes me regret the time I invested. puzzled, donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:20:01 -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: Praise (again) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clearly this was personal. I apologize profusely to the list for my error. Though I do not retract my praise, nor my recommendations made with all sincerity, to one of our many brilliant list members. donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:10:44 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:13 PM 2/18/99 -0500, gingembre (susan) wrote: > >As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I >would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and >exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally >considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are >essentially technoporn. Lots of loving detail about the technical >specs, for instance. I like writing that is plot-driven rather than >tech-driven, and typically "hard sf" as a category is more >tech-driven. Or at least, that was my impression before I started >actively avoiding it, so I couldn't say for sure. Certainly, though, >that's the perception of it. > I tend to shy away from that genre, for the same reasons- love the term "technoporn"! I used to think of it as "adolescent testosterone-driven pseudo-fantasy" And like most pornography - it is written mostly by males, and designed for a mostly male audience. Also, I would coin "sports-porn" for the plethora of novels written about sports-heroes- with its own brand of 'loving detail about the technical specs'. Secondly, like most pornography, it describes a fantasy relationship between the subject and the object of desire (in this case, tech) Thirdly, like most pornography, it tends to reduce plot and characterisation to the bare minimum, and concentrate on 'loving detail about the technical specs'. I too, have had problems, with Dave's questions about the relationship of women to 'hard sci-fi'. Initially, I could not even figure out what his question directed to the list was. Eventually, I decided whatever his question is, or was, it was not about definitions - but about assumptions. Dave seems (to me, anyway) to be assuming: 1. That women do not read/write 'hard' sci-fi 2. That women not reading/writing 'hard' sci-fi is somehow "wrong" and needs to be "fixed". 3. "Fixing" the problem in purely masculine logic, means finding the 'cause' of the 'problem', that must therefore logically lie in female anatomy and/or psychology and/or education and/or socialisation. Sounds much the same as Freudian doctors assuming: 1. women do not like heterosexual intercourse 2. women do not like heterosexual intercourse, because they are "wrong" and need "fixing" 3. the 'cause' of this problem must be something 'wrong' in female anatomy (eg.clitoris) On an end-note, I would recommend Catherine Asaro's _The Last Hawk_. Excellent mixture of 'hard' sci-fi elements, with nail-biting action, and strong characters. Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:50:24 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:13 PM 2/18/99 -0500, gingembre wrote: >As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I >would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and >exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally >considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are >essentially technoporn. Hm... could you give some examples? I'm trying to summon some to my mind and failing. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Mercury Rev -- Deserter's Songs "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:21:56 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: OT: Last Man on Planet Earth, UPN 2/18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Did anyone else see this TV movie tonight? I'm still kinda scratchin' my noggin over it. V. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:51:55 -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: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990218225024.00753ec4@together.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > At 04:13 PM 2/18/99 -0500, gingembre wrote: > >As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I > >would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and > >exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally > >considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are > >essentially technoporn. > > Hm... could you give some examples? I'm trying to summon some to my mind > and failing. > > ----- > Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT This term (technoporn) might well apply to the kind of military hardware sf written by folks like David Drake and Jerry Pournelle where the story often centers on who has the bigger and more technologically advanced guns. Although I love hard SF as it's written by people like Joan Slonczewski and Gregory Benford, I personally find the Drake-Pournelle stuff kind of distasteful. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:26:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I do not know the right answer, or I would not have asked. Neither do I think that there is only one answer. I was simply trying to thank someone for positive information. I thank you as well for challenging some of my premises and making me rethink them. donna simone wrote: > me to reorient some of my thinking.> > > So the rest of us have been wasting our time????????? Because you knew > the right answer all along?????? Makes me regret the time I invested. > > puzzled, donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:35:56 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I may well have been writing about my assumptions (I prefer hypotheses), but I really do not think that hard sf is "better" except at being hard sf (much as cats are better at being cats than at being dogs). Neither do I think there is something wrong with anyone for not liking it (much of it I find hard to accept), nor that it is "only and exclusively about science." Incorrect assumptions--on both sides--can drive many discussions astray. Julieanne wrote: > At 04:13 PM 2/18/99 -0500, gingembre (susan) wrote: > > > >As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I > >would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and > >exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally > >considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are > >essentially technoporn. Lots of loving detail about the technical > >specs, for instance. I like writing that is plot-driven rather than > >tech-driven, and typically "hard sf" as a category is more > >tech-driven. Or at least, that was my impression before I started > >actively avoiding it, so I couldn't say for sure. Certainly, though, > >that's the perception of it. > > > > I tend to shy away from that genre, for the same reasons- love the term > "technoporn"! > I used to think of it as "adolescent testosterone-driven pseudo-fantasy" > And like most pornography - it is written mostly by males, and designed for > a mostly male audience. Also, I would coin "sports-porn" for the plethora > of novels written about sports-heroes- with its own brand of 'loving detail > about the technical specs'. > Secondly, like most pornography, it describes a fantasy relationship > between the subject and the object of desire (in this case, tech) > Thirdly, like most pornography, it tends to reduce plot and > characterisation to the bare minimum, and concentrate on 'loving detail > about the technical > specs'. > > I too, have had problems, with Dave's questions about the relationship of > women to 'hard sci-fi'. Initially, I could not even figure out what his > question directed to the list was. > > Eventually, I decided whatever his question is, or was, it was not about > definitions - but about assumptions. > Dave seems (to me, anyway) to be assuming: > > 1. That women do not read/write 'hard' sci-fi > 2. That women not reading/writing 'hard' sci-fi is somehow "wrong" > and needs to be "fixed". > 3. "Fixing" the problem in purely masculine logic, means finding the > 'cause' of the 'problem', that must therefore logically lie in female > anatomy and/or psychology and/or education and/or socialisation. > > Sounds much the same as Freudian doctors assuming: > 1. women do not like heterosexual intercourse > 2. women do not like heterosexual intercourse, because they are "wrong" and > need "fixing" > 3. the 'cause' of this problem must be something 'wrong' in female anatomy > (eg.clitoris) > > On an end-note, I would recommend Catherine Asaro's _The Last Hawk_. > Excellent mixture of 'hard' sci-fi elements, with nail-biting action, and > strong characters. > > Julieanne > jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:39:06 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 18 Feb 99, at 23:51, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > This term (technoporn) might well apply to the kind of > military hardware sf written by folks like David Drake > and Jerry Pournelle where the story often centers on > who has the bigger and more technologically advanced > guns. I wonder if calling this stuff "technoporn" isn't too flattering - perhaps "technobore" is more appropriate. Much of it reminds me of the _Mack Bolan, the Executioner_ type of stuff that was popular some years ago; apart from the first one or two, these novels were essentially the same load of unbelievable macho rubbish, but they sold millions to women as well as men - especially to people in the US armed forces. One of the more exotic forms of pollution to hit the Middle East after the Gulf War was a torrent of dog-earred *Mack Bolan* clones. I think it's more than just "who has the bigg[est] ... guns" - I think it's the mindset they display. Pournelle's (especially the _Janissaries_ series) and Drake's heros have that macho hubris that says a few gungho men with modern weapons and knowhow can - like Cortes and Pizarro - defeat any number of "barbarians". Perhaps this is what makes them irresistable. That said, there's often only a narrow line between this stuff and more "literary" works. We laugh at, say, Drake's _The General_ series but I wonder how we'd rate David Weber's _Honor Harrington_series if the centre character had been a man or Bujold's _Miles Vorkosigan_ series if the author had been male? AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) ______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:44:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: OT: Last Man on Planet Earth, UPN 2/18 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit My wife and I gagged through the first hour. I didn't catch the writer's name but it seemed like another male wet dream (are there female wet dreams?), such as I had thought/hoped/wished was demolished by a devastatingly acerbic critique by Joanna Russ years ago at an MLA convention. And that's only the premise. The acting, characterizations, and cheesy special effects may have owed more to "Independence Day" than anything more respectable. We both actually enjoyed the hell out of "Independence Day" as "camp," which we were unable to do with this one. Vivian Lee wrote: > Did anyone else see this TV movie tonight? > > I'm still kinda scratchin' my noggin over it. > > V. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:53:10 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: OT: Last Man on Planet Earth, UPN 2/18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:44 PM 18/02/99 -0800, you wrote: >My wife and I gagged through the first hour. I didn't catch the >writer's name but it seemed like another male wet dream (are there >female wet dreams?), such as I had thought/hoped/wished was demolished >by a devastatingly acerbic critique by Joanna Russ years ago at an MLA >convention. And that's only the premise. The acting, >characterizations, and cheesy special effects may have owed more to >"Independence Day" than anything more respectable. We both actually >enjoyed the hell out of "Independence Day" as "camp," which we were >unable to do with this one. Well, what more can you expect from a movie that advertises itself on Usenet thus (with a few comments from moi): >It's a UPN sci-fi flick titled "The Last Man on Planet Earth," written by >"Star Trek: Voyager" Supervising Producer Kenneth Biller, Your first sign of danger right there, people. and starring "ER's" sexy >Julie Bowen... But presumably not ER's sexy production values. >Pic explores a near-future where men have been wiped out by a genetic virus... >and WOMEN rule the Earth. Gosh. What a bizarre, unthinkable concept. All it needs now is Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowell and the Statue of Liberty. >Bold geneticist (and "closet hetero") Hope Chase But, um, if men don't exist here, how does she even know what a man is, let alone lust for one in secret? Oops, sorry, that's my logic interfering again... >genetically engineers a man who becomes a fugitive. Am I the only one who couldn't help but think that this sounds exactly like a plot summary of a bizarre crossover between "The Fugitive" and "Jurassic Park"? >Great lesbian scenes, Ah, that reliable standby of Truly Godawful Movies everywhere: lesbian scenes. What are lesbians good for, I ask you, if not to titillate some impotent male who gets off on the idea of two pneumatic chicks getting it on? cool >action, and interesting stuff about sex, genetics, violence, politics, and >male-female conflict. All this and more on Regis and Kathy Lee! Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:32:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: OT: Last Man on Planet Earth, UPN 2/18 In-Reply-To: <26695381.36ccf4f4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT If you think you may actually want to see this sometime, and missed it tonight, READ NO FURTHER. ____________________________________ Well, to be honest I expected it to be even worse than it was. It's like there was one actually intelligent person on a production team of a dozen who kept getting his/her ideas modified or voted down. When I first saw the advertisements, I figured I could guess the plot. Probably something along the lines of one man against a world of incompetent, corrupt, bitchy women, who brings men back into society with the help of some useless female, who is portrayed as the only "good" woman solely because she is subservient to the male "hero". Or some such similar nonsense. In the movie, some of the women were bitchy, some were corrupt, but most were portrayed as competent; technology had advanced at the same rate with only women around. The two small pockets of men were performing stud service or were a ragged band of revolutionaries, all of which were portayed as badly as the worst females in the story. And the male 'hero' was more or less the hero because "aggressive tendencies" had been genetically engineered out of him. Advanced stuff for a TV movie. And the man's love interest was actually his maker, which is a twist on the typical man-makes-beautiful-female-android junk that is a pet peeve of mine. Of course, in the end he overcomes his docility to save his maker/love interest by shooting a bad guy who is trying to kidnap her. Gag. And, of course, almost all of the women in the story, and one really annoying teen in particular, are obsessed with the thought of men and sex with men. As if the writers can't envision sex without a penis, or women wanting sex without a penis. Gag gag. Still, my overall opinion is: better than I expectecd, far less than I hoped for. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I didn't like it very much. Maybe because I felt they were trying too hard not to offend either men or women, so ended up offended everyone just a little bit. I'll give it some more thought. Bonnie On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Vivian Lee wrote: > Did anyone else see this TV movie tonight? > > I'm still kinda scratchin' my noggin over it. > > V. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:19:26 -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: OT: Last Man on Planet Earth, UPN 2/18 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LOL.....You bet! chuckling, donna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:22:17 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: genre research library Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I thought this announcement might be of interest to some members! High Hallack GENRE WRITERS' RESEARCH and REFERENCE LIBRARY High Hallack Genre Writers' Research and Reference Library is a unique facility which is the result of more than half a century of labor. A tax-exempt foundation, it is intended to provide writers and scholars of "popular" literature that is, those whose work deals with the genres of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, western, romance, gothic, or horror a peaceful place for research and reference study. The Library's books have been carefully selected for this purpose and include outstanding examples, both early and contemporary, of every genre, as well as relevant non-fiction studies and handbooks for writing in that field. Foreign material is represented, too, as are publications which have long been out of print. In addition to its core collection of more than ten thousand books supplied by Andre Norton, High Hallack also boasts a military-history library bequeathed by fantasy author Robert Adams and an extensive selection of pagan and Wiccan lore contributed by an eighth-generation Welsh witch. (The latter includes two authentic brooms, which must NOT be double-parked, or violators will be "toad.") Moreover, the library owns a mini-gallery of original fantasy art, examples from which will be on display, and a sizable group of relevant videos, available for viewing by request. To employ the resources of High Hallack, it is necessary to be either a working writer of a student currently enrolled at college level or higher; equally with the writing of fiction, the production of scholarly papers or articles constitutes an acceptable usage of its offerings. The Library encourages authors and scholars in both the juvenile and adult fields of its represented genres to labor here, as it contains notable works for both age levels. As many as four researchers are welcome at a time. No materials may be removed from the Library but must be read or viewed on site. There is no charge for use of the facility itself; however, a modest fee will be asked for faxing or copying needs. As an additional service, critiques on both creative and academic writing are available by prior arrangement; a charge will also be made for these analysis. Poetry on subjects from fantasy and science fiction will be examined by Dr. Rose Wolf; prose will be the province of Andre Norton. Murfreesboro, Tennessee, home to High Hallack, is steeped in history. It was the location of two critical battles during the Civil War, and its antebellum appearance has been restored in the center of the town; it also showcases numerous historical homes and other sites and may thus in itself provide a source of interest and inspiration to Library patrons. To make application for use of this facility, please write to the following address: High Hallack 114 Eventide Drive Murfreesboro, TN 37130-2123 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:23:06 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: My relationship with "hard" SF (i.e. The Big Boys) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I hope I'm going to be able to resist the temptation to make really really bad puns about this whole thing.....ya see. I was (as I've noted before but cannot expect people to remember) born in 1955, in Moscow, Idaho. My father is a geologist (metamorphic) who worked at the university. He is and was a Major SF Fan. I learned to read at an early age, about 3, and some of my Most Favorite Memories are SF ones (the Mushroom Planet series, and some series about a kitten who grew up to be a cat who kept going on space ships--he stowed away the first time, and then became the official ship's cat). Tarzan too. Of course just about every chararacter was MALE. Default: normal, male, human. (Not only in SF, but in just about all the books given children to read.) I was also (I blush now to admit it) Daddy's Little Girl--the oldest, the favorite. I read all his ANALOGS (may have been called something else then) and became an SF Addict. (For one thing, it was the closest thing to escaping from Moscow, Idaho that I could come up with--I later read a lot of British literature for the same reason). But this love for literature played out in Real Life too. Dad always called us to see the space walks, the Moon landings, all that stuff; at a later point, we visited one of his graduate students who was working at NASA and got MOON ROCKS (well, ahem, Dad did, for the school, but WE GOT TO TOUCH THEM). We had a telescope. I loved astronomy and geology. I read LOTS of sf. With the exception of Andre Norton, it was mostly by men, the Big Boys: Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury (NOT hard sf), and so on. A lot of my history with my father is tied up with SF: the first time I felt that I could achieve something he couldn't was when we both started DUNE (Frank Herbert) the summer I was 14 or so. Dad gave up in disgust; didn't like the language or need for a glossary. It was "hard" but I kept reading, absolutely fascinated. (FOr us, SF included some of the fantasy too--we were both total addicts of Tolkein's LORD OF THE RINGS.) As a result of all this sort of scientific background, i was the only person a few years later in a graduate English seminar to know what a Moebus (sp?) strip was--and to be able to make one. It had been something Dad had shown us when I was in grade school. We made them all the time. BUT but but but.....when I found Russ' "When It Changed" in Ellison's DANGEROUS VISIONS, I suddenly realized what had been missing. A decade or so later, I moved completely into feminism and feminist SF. And started making jokes about people who seriously insisted there was a measurable difference between "hard" SF and "soft" SF (what, I said, was it bigger). I also treasure the unforgettable foreword to Tiptree's first novel in which Robert Silverberg declared solemnly that there was something "ineluctably masculine" about Tiptree's writing, not that Heavens forbid there was ANYTHING wrong with "feminine writing" after all Austen was Austen and Hemingway was Hemingway, separate but equal (guess Silverberg didn't know that Hemingway's major mentor was Gertrude Stein, hahahahahahahahahaha). The discussion of differences between men and women, in regard to literature or just about any other field, seem to be to too often fall into the same pattern. That pattern goes: "women" over there are not doing what "we" are doing over here--they must be deficient! (See Joanna Russ, _How to Suppress Women's Writing_). There is a text out: _The Ascent of Wonder: The Evolution of Hard SF" edited by David G. Hartwell and Kathryn Cramer, featuring 61 writers. The women among those 61 are C.L Moore, Kate Wilhelm, Ursula K. LeGuin, Anne McCaffrey, Katherine Maclean. Among the "men" included are Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allen Poe, H.G. Wells, and Rudyard Kipling (not mostly known for their sf!). The anthology wants to prove there is a distinguishable genre called "hard SF" and there are three introductions to prove it. In terms of absence of women in earlier years, social context has to be taken into account--women were not allowed in universities, were not trained in the sciences, were socially and sometimes forcibly excluded from getting that sort of training. (Read about what the first women admitted to science and medical programs had to go through--bad for white women, impossible or even worse for women of any other color). Even in my youth, women weren't exactly encouraged to go into sciences. My father did want me in a man's field, but I had a hard time with Math from 7th grade on. I went into History first, then after my First British Parliamentary Class into Classical Studies. (Of course, when I had my obligatory interview at age 17 with the Chair of the History Department, he spent 10 minutes ranting about how all this blankety blank affirmative action would result in only women, no matter how bad, getting all the history jobs in future--this event took place in 1973--in 1996, by the way, the statistics show History is second lowest in the Humanities for granting Ph.D.s to women--the only worst discipline is Philosophy). Now, as this list reveals, more and more women are receiving educational and professional training. More and more women are publishing SF (and the issue of writing vs. publishing is a real one too--for years every writing group or class I was in had way more women than men, but in many areas way more men than women are published--but not because women don't write, I say!). I expect this trend to continue. My experience in fandom taught me that even during the fifties and sixties when the publishers all claimed that the main audience for SF was adolescent males that a whole bunch of females were reading it. But I didn't subscribe--I was a child reading my father's sf magazines. All the publishing stats proved was who had the money to subscribe to their magazines. I don't think there's any way to know authoritatively who was reading sf or SF then. To try to generealize anything about "women" and "SF" (or "women" and "anything else") takes a good deal of care because of the necessity for limiting claims and considering context. People interested in this issue might also consider the debate about/between African Americans and "science fiction." Octavia Butler talks about how some African Americans see "science fiction" over there as basically being about "toys for whites" only. When you are talking about "women," just what women are you talking about? Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:40:49 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >At 04:13 PM 2/18/99 -0500, gingembre wrote: >>As someone who is turned off by writing characterized as "hard sf", I >>would say that it quite possibly could be defined as "only and >>exclusively about science". The reason I don't like things generally >>considered "hard sf" is that a lot of them, in my experience, are >>essentially technoporn. and Janice asked, >Hm... could you give some examples? I'm trying to summon some to my mind >and failing. > Well, how about the first couple of Weber's Honor Harrington books? I loved the series, but I have to admit that I got a little irritated with Weber's insistence on explaining exactly how his warships are designed and constructed, and then going on and on about the typical military tactics that his characters' ancestors developed long ago. Some of this was necessary to the plots of the books, but a whole lot of it was clearly "technoporn." To be fair, though, what's so wrong with that? One of the reasons I love Mercedes Lackey is that she can create a whole world of different cultures. She sometimes goes on at length to explain the mores of her different peoples, and it's only tangentially necessary to the plots of her stories. To me, it's fascinating and I wish I could do it. To others (men, mostly?) it's probably tedious. Is this an example of "cultureporn?" Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:11:11 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: Hard SF Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain After all this talk about SF, I decided to check one of my favorite SF websites, the "What is Science Fiction?" page put together by one Richard Treitel, at http://www.sirius.com/~treitel/ This is not a particularly feminist website, but it shows an obvious love of the genre, it's free of jargon and cant, and it has the biggest and best list of definitions of SF that I've every read. He has a rather lengthy discussion of "Hard" versus "Soft" SF, and concludes with this: "My own favourite definition [of Hard SF, which he calls ScF for some reason} is even looser than those above: it simply says that hard ScF is about how natural objects (and machines built out of them) behave in the author's invented world, while soft ScF is about how people (and societies built out of them) behave in an invented world. Note that people may be human or non-human. The weakness here is that there are sciences whose subject matter is people, so if I accept anthropology as a science, I may have to accept, for example, The Dispossessed as hard ScF. Hmmm. You be the judge. Other people on rec.arts.sf.written have suggested that hard ScF is simply ScF written by and/or for people with the mindset of a "hard" (physical) scientist or engineer. I wish I could acknowledge the one who wrote Hard SF is a form of alternate universe fiction, set in a world where the world-view of American engineers in the late twentieth century is a precise reflection of The Way Things Are. " I think this is a great approach to a definition, because it throws out all that nonsense about plausiblity and scientific fact and gets right to the heart of the sub-genre. For my part, I suspect the reason few women seem to write "Hard SF" is the same reason that few men write SF that has a significant crossover audience with romance readers, the way Bujold's work does. Writers are people too, with tastes and interests that vary along somewhat predictable lines. For that matter, there aren't many female writers of the military SF Mike Levy finds distasteful. Probably for the same reasons as above. (I too find those books distasteful, but they are one of my favorite guilty pleasures. ) Danny ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:17:39 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: genre research library Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/19/99 6:22:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, Robin_Reid@TAMU- COMMERCE.EDU writes: << ! >> Did we just get spammed, or am I the only one privileged to get the Amazin020 message? Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:49:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: gingembre Subject: Re: "Hard" Science Fiction In-Reply-To: <001801be5c1e$3b065e80$15709ad1@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: > Well, how about the first couple of Weber's Honor Harrington books? I loved > the series, but I have to admit that I got a little irritated with Weber's > insistence on explaining exactly how his warships are designed and > constructed, and then going on and on about the typical military tactics > that his characters' ancestors developed long ago. Some of this was > necessary to the plots of the books, but a whole lot of it was clearly > "technoporn." To be fair, though, what's so wrong with that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Even within the narrow definition of "hard SF" as being entirely tech-oriented, there's still nothing wrong with that. It's just that I don't personally find it even slightly interesting. I realize that the label "technoporn" sounds a little more dismissive than I intended--it's a habit I picked up from, believe it or not, _Synners_ by Pat Cadigan. There are a couple scenes of characters watching television and flipping past what they call food porn, med porn, that kind of thing. It seemed like such a perfect shorthand for summarizing certain kinds of things that it's stuck with me. -- Susan susan@apocalypse.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Sleeping alone, except under doctor's orders, does much harm. Children will tell you how lonely it is sleeping alone. If possible you should always sleep with someone you love. You recharge your mutual batteries free of charge." --Marlene Dietrich ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:19:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: <36CB832B.CAF@people-link.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Interesting thought. What I would find interesting is not so much the > number of postings by each person, but how many responses are made to a > certain poster -- because it seems like the most offensive posts get > responded to over and over, whereas ingoring them might take the wind > out of their sails a lot faster. Do you see what I mean? I think it's even more interesting that "posting a lot" turns out to be some kind of crime that one should be embarrassed about. I guess the whole point of a discussion list is to sit here quietly and never raise your voice -- like a good girl. About the "28-day cycle of insults" -- I think that's the most amazing idea since the notion that a woman can't be a President since "she could start a nuclear war because of PMS". Concerning the latter, by the way, in my humble opinion, PMS is nothing more than the 20-th century version of the Victorian "hysteria". Just another "scientific proof" of the innate emotional instability of women. The same as the "medical proof that women cannot ran marathons" and other such academic boloney of the past. I know that a lot of women in US seriously believe that they have PMS. The same as lots and lots of women in Victorian England genuinely felt like "invalids" and fainted all the time -- cause they were taught they should. Curiously enough, in the majority of cultures, such thing as PMS simply does not exist. No one ever heard of it, let alone experienced it. A "natural plight" that affects women only in _one_ country -- isn't that kind of strange? Finally, since Mr.Stirling is a male, I don't think the whole 28-day thing could even be an issue. What his "cycle" would be, I wonder -- monthly nocturnal emissions? It never stops amazing me how people who have too little to say and/or no balls to ever voice their opinion like to gripe about others "talking too much". The same on the subject of a "classroom dominated by an aggressive male". If one doesn't like being in such situation -- she can always tell the said male to shut up. Or present her own view on the matter, so she won't feel "dominated".(Ironically enough, most women don't have a problem scolding another woman for sticking out, while they'd rather cut off their right arm that risk hurting some male's ego -- our list can be a great example of that at times). Instead, people reserve to the good, old, and so much safer kvetching: "Some people tend to be _so_ out of control..." I hate to say this, but if women want to stop being always shoved into the background and disregarded, they've gotta lose this "women should be seen and not heard" and "bringing attention to yourself is not ladylike" attitude. If we want to have rights, we've gotta go and take them, no one is going to bring it to us on the tray as a reward for being nice, quiet, and agreeable. At least, that's what I think. After all, if the point of being here is to post as little as possible, maybe we should change it from a _discussion_ group to some Order of Silence. Possibly with prizes for "holding back one's opinion the longest". Prolifically yours, Marina P.S. By the way, whoever was wondering about the "cycle of postings" -- my period just ended -- and I've never had PMS anyway. You are welcome to put that it your "28-day table". Need any other physiological detail that would make you feel better? http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:25:18 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: immortality/Buffy In-Reply-To: <36CB84C9.2F6A@people-link.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > I thought of you all when I heard the end of an excellent interview on > NPR with cancer researcher Dr.Robert Weinberg-- He said that the thing > about cancer cells is that they are *immortal*! Meaning, you can put > them in a petri dish and they will keep splitting indefinitely whereas > normal cells will split for awhile and then die. Isn't that fascinating? > Weinberg's book is called _One Renegade Cell_. Maybe that's what inspired that X-File episode with the immortal paramedic whose body was made completely out of cancer cells. He could regrow any part of his body (including the whole thing) and had to constantly devour other people's malignant tumors in order to stay alive. I wonder what happens if you just keep feeding those cancer cells in the petri dish and let them divide indefinitely -- would they evolve into an organism that will eventually be able to find food for itself? 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, 19 Feb 1999 16:47:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: cover art / Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Helen: Am not sure I'm correctly reading one of your comments. Did you dislike the cover for BLUE PLACE? I though it was great and very striking, one of the better covers of last year, if unfortunately somewhat thematically similar to Abbie Padgett's BLUE. ________ Accurate or not, I think my personal definition of hard SF is rather like Susan's (gingembre ). I think of it as SF more about ideas and technology, where as I am more interested in people's responses to the consequences of these ideas and technology. Then again, maybe it's a kinda negative term in my mind, since I would apply it to books which might have a stimulating scientific concept but fail to hold my attention through interesting characters, politics, etc. Ciao, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:48:42 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re Jael, where are you? Jane Franklin wrote: >>Let me share with you a little conversation I overheard yesterday while in downtown Minneapolis, walking through the skyways. That is, down amongst the corporate elite. (Two well dressed business types, early thirties) "She's what I call a skinny fat girl....that is, she's skinny, but she's not real....firm. She'll probably get fat later on." (Mutual sort of nasty snickering laughter) Doesn't this boggle the mind? It's not enough that this theoretical "she" has done the appropriate thing--that is, stayed thin, gotten thin, whatever--she's just not "firm" enough. It really illustrates that it's not the actual literal fact of weight or non-weight that matters; the whole thing is just a set up to make fun of women, to dismiss women, to control women. And it illustrates that as diet obscession sets in, ever-higher standards are created. Beauty inflation. Anyway, I was sooooo tempted to go and smack that fellow. If I could only have channeled Jael for a moment!<< Don't you think Russ had a great time writing Jael? I never want to invoke the powers of a vengeful masculine god, but Jael, she'd do just fine on some occasions. Beauty inflation, what a perfect term. If women are mere objects to be valued for their physical attractiveness, imperfections really should be discounted. Maybe you could purchase this "skinny-fat" woman at an outlet store, but Nieman Marcus would sell only the truly thin, firm and of course big breasted ones. The ones with the string you pull to hear "You're the king, you're the greatest". It might make sense to have a little alter to Jael, kind of like Kali. Sometimes destruction is called for. >>Kali is the destroyer of demons. We must work to destroy the "demons" that are the result of patriarchy. This might sound a bit dramatic, but the effects of a male culture eat at women's souls just as surely as mythological demons. For those who worship Kali, each woman is a representative of the Goddess. Violence against women is forbidden, and that is exactly what this magazine is about. Pornography and misogyny in the media promote and encourage violence against women, including rape. Kali was depicted with four arms (some of her other aspects had many more), dark skinned or black, with bare breasts. In most common images of Kali she holds a sword in one hand and a head in another while her other two hands encourage worshippers. In one carving she stands on the prone body of her husband/son Shiva.<< (From the Women of Kali -- a feminist anti-porn monthly zine. I think Jael would fit right in here.) Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:53:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Internet Scam! Re: [*FSFFU*] Test yourself, How bold you are In-Reply-To: <19990218012545.10385.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, John Woo wrote: > Feel bold enough? Then visit this site: > > http://www.secrets2success.com//special3720 A better question would be "Feel stupid enough?" This is a "get rich quick" scheme ("hand over $199 bucks and you'll never have to work again") of the most primitive kind. I think it's illegal to post this kind of crap on mailing lists, no? Marina ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:59:45 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: The Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/19/99 4:29:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: << Finally, since Mr.Stirling is a male, I don't think the whole 28-day thing could even be an issue. What his "cycle" would be, I wonder >> I swear this is true: I once read a research report that followed women's moods throughout their cycles. As a control, men were monitored too and it turned out, yes, Virginia, they too are on a 28 day cycle and got crankier than the women were noted to have done. The report was done years ago, and I no longer have the reference. Sorry. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:43:42 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: The Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/99 4:03:07 AM, you wrote: << once read a research report that followed women's moods throughout their cycles. As a control, men were monitored too and it turned out, yes, Virginia, they too are on a 28 day cycle >> Terrific! Let's hear it for the Moon. Thank you Mother phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 22:15:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: My relationship with "hard" SF (i.e. The Big Boys) In-Reply-To: <199902191523.JAA26026@etsuodt.tamu-commerce.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Robin Reid wrote: >> > excellent discussion of "hard" science fiction snipped > > > People interested in this issue might also consider the debate about/between > African Americans and "science fiction." Octavia Butler talks about how > some African Americans see "science fiction" over there as basically being > about "toys for whites" only. When you are talking about "women," just what > women are you talking about? > > Robin > This has bothered me for some time, and I haven't posted before only because, after 15 years, I can't remeber the exact title, but it pertains to the "covers" discussion as well: the first novel I read by Octavia Butler had women on the cover, yes, but it was a white woman unveiling another white woman. One reason that story made such an impression on me (besides the hard-edged adventure and fully realized alien world) was because it was told so well from the point of view of a narrator who was naturally and irreplacebly herself, and who dealt with the ironies and contradictions of awakening a white woman into a world that only she had inhabited as human up to that time. Although the cover may have kept the odd reader from being scared off, I wish it had reflected the depth of that novel. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 04:38:40 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "H.H. Thompson" Subject: Re: cover art /Blue Place Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-02-19 19:44:20 EST, Maryelizabeth penned: << Am not sure I'm correctly reading one of your comments. Did you dislike the cover for BLUE PLACE? I though it was great and very striking, one of the better covers of last year, if unfortunately somewhat thematically similar to Abbie Padgett's BLUE. >> I'm not sure that I find the woman's knees at either side of the jacket to be aesthetically pleasing. Are we looking at the same cover? By striking, are you referring to the model's face or her posturing or the fact that the photograph is tinted a very striking shade of blue? And for that matter, who *is* that on the cover? Aud's 33, and I'd be pressed not to card that model. It just seemed like an utter non-sequitur cover. Surely, I'd not have known it was a suspense novel had it not been blazoned at the bottom in neon yellow. It really strikes me as a "sex will sell this thing" cover, not to the degree of romance novels, but certainly to the degree that many magazines (read: the spectrum from Cosmo to Maxim) do. Nicola might have some comments of her own, I think -- I vaguely remember seeing something from her end at some point on the topic (her webpage, perhaps?). Helen ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:21:07 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: PMS: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:19 PM 2/19/99 -0600, Marina wrote: > >Concerning the latter, by the way, in my humble opinion, PMS is nothing >more than the 20-th century version of the Victorian "hysteria". Just >another "scientific proof" of the innate emotional instability of women. (snip)>I know that a lot of women in US seriously believe that they have PMS. >The same as lots and lots of women in Victorian England genuinely felt >like "invalids" and fainted all the time -- cause they were taught they >should. Curiously enough, in the majority of cultures, such thing as PMS >simply does not exist. No one ever heard of it, let alone experienced it. >A "natural plight" that affects women only in _one_ country -- isn't that >kind of strange? It is a recognisable medical condition - and like many conditions can range in severity from mild to severe. I don't think the problem lies in recognising it as a condition per se - as in the 'mis-information' which is promulgated through the media, and very often by doctors who agree with you Marina, and dismiss the symptoms of a sufferer as being "hysterical". I'm sorry Marina - but some women do suffer from the condition, often in pain and having people say their pain does not exist, is not very helpful. It is also one of the ways used by the medical profession to ignore, or worse, mistreat or misdiagnose, women's health problems. It is by no means limited to the USA, and is recognised as being an uncommon, but certainly not rare condition in women world-wide. Indeed, in northern India for example, the rate of severe symptoms in older women, is quite high due to the higher incidence of thyroid disease in geographical areas with low iodine content in the diet. Similar to various disorders of the menstrual cycle eg: dysmenorrhea (painful periods), amenorrhoea (absence of periods outside of pregnancy); or even irregular menstrual cycles; it is by no means 'natural' to all women, and may have a number of causes, such as uterine fibroids, or related hormonal disorders such as thyroid disease. Another myth is that the only symptoms are vague emotional ones, like irritability or depression. Not true. Another is that all women have it. Also not true. It is more common however, (along with other menstrual disorders) in women over 35, who have previously had one or more pregnancies, and are not using hormonal contraception (The Pill, Depo-Provera for example) at the time of onset. Other risk factors include diabetes. In the same way, that mild arthritis may not need medical supervision, or treatment - mild PMS may not be a problem for the woman concerned and she is able to live a normal life. Severe arthritis, can be debilitating - so can severe PMS. Physical symptoms include 'bloating' because of fluid retention (swelling ankles, and/or tummy&pelvis); raised blood pressure; and insomnia and night-sweats. All of which could make anyone feel damn cranky and irritable, or depressed, if they haven't been able to sleep for 3 nights straight, and their swollen ankles hurt. As the name implies - symptoms usually disappear like magic, to the enormous relief to sufferers, at onset of menstruation. The high blood pressure can also lead to higher risks of heart disease. The fluid retention, if severe enough, can lead to bladder problems, due to the reduction in urinary output. Rapid and larger-than-normal fluctuations in fluid metabolism, is also a risk factor for developing diabetes. As for males - yes they do have hormonal cycles. Not just the sex hormones like testosterone, but also adrenaline amongst others - Most research on human hormonal mechanisms was directed toward fertility control. Male cycles were found to be more highly variable both within individuals, and across populations of men, than female cycles. More problematic for fertility researchers however, is that they are more responsive to 'environment' triggers, such as changes in glucose levels, or nutritional/metabolic status etc, than female cycles. Men's hormones can peak or plummet, depending on such variables as whether they had cereal or beef-steak for breakfast:) In other words, men are more likely to be inconsistent:) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:46:36 -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: cover art /Blue Place MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nicola herself from Q/A on her web page: "So then I wanted to call it _Thaw_, because that's essentially what Aud does in the course of the book. But that title was deemed to have "no movement," so someone came up with the bright idea of _The Blue Place_. By this time I was tired, and really not well, and they'd put the whole cover design together (just assuming I'd go along with things) so I threw up my hands and said, "Fine, whatever." I was asked for my input regarding the cover design and illustration. I'd wanted greens and blues and violet, bright and icy colours that would stand out from other books on the shelf. The blue they used is too dark to pop out at a distance, in my opinion, and the woman on the cover is way too young and scruffy to be Aud, and has none of her terrifying presence. Still, it looks good up close, and I've certainly had worse covers (the first edition of Ammonite, for example). If Avon bring the colours up a tone, and print the title and my name in bigger type for the trade paperback, I'll be content." (Nicola forgive me for copyright violation) donna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:38:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Off-topic postings & spam; was Re: [*FSFFU*] Internet Scam! Re: [*FSFFU*] Test yourself, How bold , you are Comments: To: feministsf@uic.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII It ain't illegal, no, but it is against list rules. I've removed the spammer ... laura q list-mistress On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Marina wrote: > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:53:52 -0600 > From: Marina > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Internet Scam! Re: [*FSFFU*] Test yourself, How bold > you are > > On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, John Woo wrote: > > Feel bold enough? Then visit this site: > > > > http://www.secrets2success.com//special3720 > > A better question would be "Feel stupid enough?" > > This is a "get rich quick" scheme ("hand over $199 bucks and you'll > never have to work again") of the most primitive kind. > > I think it's illegal to post this kind of crap on mailing lists, no? > > Marina > Laura Quilter / lquilter@igc.apc.org ** No More Sig Files! ** No More Witty Slogans! Save Bandwidth! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:42:24 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: cover art /Blue Place Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Donna, thanks for the quote. It sums up how I feel (and saves me saying it all again--but I will anyway ). As an illustration, considered simply on its own merits, I think the cover of THE BLUE PLACE is just fine. As a cover, ie. as a selling tool, as something meant to attract a potential buyer, and to then give that buyer both a sense of the book and an incentive to buy said book, I don't think it does a very good job. I've had readers tell me they bought the book *because* of the cover, and I've had readers tell me they bought it *despite* the cover...so, hey, my opinion doesn't really matter that much, in the final analysis. For some people it's great, for some it isn't. Helen has a point, though, about the spread knees. Especially when you consider that my name hovers right over the model's crotch. When I first saw the illustration, I turned to Kelley and said, "Huh, now I'll be known as Nicola "Crotch" Griffith." There are worse things, I suppose.... Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:06:22 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG nominations: Ring of Swords, The Falling Woman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" OK, I'll nominate a couple this time around: Ring of Swords, by Eleanor Arnason $13.95 Paperback - 382 pages (January 1995) Tor Books; ISBN: 0312890168 Russell Letson, Locus micro review, lifted from amazon: For half a century, Earth has been on the brink of total war with an implacable alien race. Biologist Anna Perez is the first to discover the truth--the hwarhath have segregated their society strictly along gender lines, to prevent the warlike males from harming women and children. In their eyes, humans are a dishonorable and barbaric race who may require extermination.... a remarkably suspenseful book.... I plan to devour [Arnason's next book] with the same delight and intellectual relish that I found in this one. Why I'm nominating this one: it's a swell book. The gender stuff is key but integral to the story. Well written, as are all but her earliest book. I figure we're probably due for a sequel to this or another book from Arnason soon, but it's not necessary in order to enjoy this one. There's adventure, cultural intrigue, first contact, strong female characters, you name it. Her earlier book (out of print, arrrgh) tied for a Tiptree award. Read this even if we don't select it. The Falling Woman by Pat Murphy $11.95 Paperback Reprint edition (August 1993) Tor Books; ISBN: 0312854064 The blurb from amazon: Elizabeth Waters, an archeologist who abandoned her husband and daughter years ago to pursue her career, can see the shadows of the past. It's a gift she keeps secret from her colleagues and students, one that often leads her to incredible archeological discoveries and the realization that she might be going mad. Then on a dig in the Yucatan, the shadow of a Mayan priestess speaks to her. Suddenly Elizabeth's daughter Diane arrives, hoping to reconnect with her mother. As mother, daughter and priestess fall into the mysterious world of Mayan magic, it is clear one will be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. The book won the 1988 Nebula Award. Samuel Delany: "a lovely and literate exploration of the dark moment where myth and science meet." Why I'm nominating this one: This is the same author who wrote "The City Not Long After" (out of print, arrgh) which has had recent brief mention on the list. This is a reissue of her previous book, I believe. Strong female characters, adventure, well written, etc. Again, pick this one up even if the group doesn't select it. I have loved anything I've read of Murphy's. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:29:25 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: 36 degrees Subject: Re: The Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain madrone said: >I swear this is true: I once read a research report that followed women's >moods throughout their cycles. As a control, men were monitored too and it >turned out, yes, Virginia, they too are on a 28 day cycle and got crankier >than the women were noted to have done. yep, i heard about that too. i even heard that they had their own little acronym for it: ETS (excessive testosterone syndrome). heh heh. johanna ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 19:25:24 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: PMS: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990220212107.007a1b60@ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Julieanne wrote: > I'm sorry Marina - but some women do suffer from the condition, often in > pain and having people say their pain does not exist, is not very helpful. > It is also one of the ways used by the medical profession to ignore, or > worse, mistreat or misdiagnose, women's health problems. OK, lets assume that PMS exists. Does that mean it's alright to use it as the first explanation of _any_ aspect of women's behavior? As you said, not all women have it. So how come that in the mass culture, PMS is claimed to be as much of universal "woman's nature" as having a vagina? Is it once again "woman's mind is in her womb"? I am sorry for those people who suffer from PMS. But I refuse to be considered as an "inherently moody" creature because I am female. If for some people being seen and treated as raving maniacs for a few days every months is OK, that's their choice. However, for me, there is a difference between respecting one's pain and using it to dismiss the person's opinion. The original statement about 28 day cycle, IMHO, is no different from suggesting to group the list members by age and wonder how many "agressive" posters are that way because they are going through menapause. How would you all like that idea? 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, 20 Feb 1999 20:37:07 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Vivian Lee Subject: RAH on PMS (was Re: [*FSFFU*] The Way We Talk) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit suddenly I remember R. Heinlein's quote on PMS: 'PMS: women, just before their periods, act the way men do all the time.' V. ducking and running ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:55:54 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: 36 degrees Subject: wiscon query. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain dorky question. i'm sure a lot of ppl on here have been to wiscon before... it sounds absolutely amazing, but i was wondering if it was mostly geared towards ppl 'in' feminist s-f/f--i mean like authors & other industry ppl? i am seriously considering going, & i just wanted to make sure, since i'm fr. the east coast & am planning on asking my parents/fam for $ for my b-day to put towards this! so it'd be a rather large commitment on my part & i wanted to be sure that as an avid reader/fan (but not writer), i wouldn't feel like a total moron. i think i'd have fun anyway--looked @ the events list fr. last year & it looked soooooooooo wonderful. but just wanted to hear a little bit more about it, maybe, fr. ppl who have gone. especially: can a person who goes alone & doesn't actually know anyone else there, & who oscillates between being fairly outgoing & fairly shy, still meet ppl & go to stuff (i don't mean panels, etc., i mean like the little parties & other social gatherings that make up cons) & have fun? (heh. purely hypothetical question of course!) thanks for any advice, anecdotes, reassurance... johanna ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:23:07 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: PMS: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I used to be undecided as to whether PMS existed or not...I knew women who at the faintest hint of a symptom would use it to maintain this give me give me sort of dynamic with her own family (knew 4 of this type of person, 3 were related tho) Soon after having turned 29, I noticed my cycles which you could set your watch by when it came to predicting when they started and when they ended, began to change dramatically. I would have a period maybe once every 4-5 months...the usual treatment was to give me a pregnancy test (despite telling the nurse you have been abstinate for 2 years but I understand they need to run their tests)...then to put me on birth control to regulate my cycle...I am 31 now, and now I am in the middle of getting a third opinion about getting a D & C to help the problem, and yes the suggestion of uterus removal was been brought up...amidst all this medical goings on, my body tells me things I do not want to hear. My concentration goes to zero, I overreact to little things that normally never bothered me before...I get panicky where before I am a typically calm persona...sometimes I feel I should leave the doctors alone and wing it, but these little things interfere with some of my everyday life, with the people I interact...this feeling lasts into the first week I begin bleeding, and begins about 5 days before...this time it is a little different, I am having pain in my lower abdomen that was never there before...yesterday while waiting for the bus I had to find a place to lean against the pain was clean and intense...are these little things happening to me a sign that something is going wrong in my body and my body is trying to tell me? I ask the doctor that every visit. My mother died at 49 from a stroke that was part of a host of things originating with a uterine tumor...sometimes I feel I should not worry so dang much, that if you think about illness, sometimes you can make yourself feel sick, I mean seeing the mind is so dang powerful and all...but I also believe if you know how your body reacts to things, you would benefit from listening to it from time to time, because it is too easy to ignore little naggy things that could be part of a bigger problem yet unseen. My mother ignored this pain for 20 years, because she feared doctors. When she went in to be treated when she could not stand the pain anymore, it was too late to help her stay alive. Am just saying there is this range of women who sometimes do use PMS as an excuse, I have known women to do this, but I have also met women who found the symptoms later led to prevent more serious conditions...which I am in the process of determining as I write this. Jo Ann At 07:25 PM 2/20/99 -0600, you wrote: >On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Julieanne wrote: > >> I'm sorry Marina - but some women do suffer from the condition, often in >> pain and having people say their pain does not exist, is not very helpful. >> It is also one of the ways used by the medical profession to ignore, or >> worse, mistreat or misdiagnose, women's health problems. > >OK, lets assume that PMS exists. Does that mean it's alright to use it as >the first explanation of _any_ aspect of women's behavior? As you said, >not all women have it. So how come that in the mass culture, PMS is >claimed to be as much of universal "woman's nature" as having a vagina? >Is it once again "woman's mind is in her womb"? > >I am sorry for those people who suffer from PMS. But I refuse to be >considered as an "inherently moody" creature because I am female. If >for some people being seen and treated as raving maniacs for a few >days every months is OK, that's their choice. However, for me, there is >a difference between respecting one's pain and using it to dismiss the >person's opinion. > >The original statement about 28 day cycle, IMHO, is no different from >suggesting to group the list members by age and wonder how many >"agressive" posters are that way because they are going through menapause. >How would you all like that idea? > >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, 20 Feb 1999 21:36:23 CST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbara Benesch-Granberg Subject: Re: wiscon query. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain > dorky question. Nah, no such thing... I hope. grin. > i'm sure a lot of ppl on here have been to wiscon before... it >sounds absolutely amazing, but i was wondering if it was mostly >geared towards ppl 'in' feminist s-f/f--i mean like authors & other >industry ppl? > i am seriously considering going, & i just wanted to make sure, >since i'm fr. the east coast & am planning on asking my parents/fam >for $ for my b-day to put towards this! so it'd be a rather large >commitment on my part & i wanted to be sure that as an avid >reader/fan (but not writer), i wouldn't feel like a total moron. I'm with you - I'm still considering going myself, but am not yet sure. Luckily it won't take so much planning on my part - I live about 3-4 hours away from Madison and have friends who live there, so I'm certain to have a place to crash. > i think i'd have fun anyway--looked @ the events list fr. last year >& it looked soooooooooo wonderful. but just wanted to hear a little >bit more about it, maybe, fr. ppl who have gone. especially: can a >person who goes alone & doesn't actually know anyone else there, & >who oscillates between being fairly outgoing & fairly shy, still meet >ppl & go to stuff (i don't mean panels, etc., i mean like the little >parties & other social gatherings that make up cons) & have fun? >(heh. purely hypothetical question of course!) > thanks for any advice, anecdotes, reassurance... I haven't been to WisCon before (well, to any cons, actually) but I'm seriously considering going this year. What I can say as reassurance is that Madison is one of the coolest towns I've ever been to (perhaps this is indicative of my limited travel experience, so feel free to take this with a teeny grain of salt), and the hotel is fairly close to the downtown 'main drag' area, which has a lot of neat stuff, so if you find yourself with a spare couple of hours, you may want to take a 'wander' out of the hotel to see some of the sights. Let me know if you do plan on going, because I'd enjoy meeting up with other folks off the list, if only for lunch. It'd be cool to put some faces with all the names I see. grin. Hoping to make it to WisCon, Barbara Benesch-Granberg BJBenesch@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:12:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: wiscon query. In-Reply-To: <2403600@flc.flink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:03 PM 2/20/99 CST, Johanna wrote: > i'm sure a lot of ppl on here have been to wiscon before... it sounds >absolutely amazing, but i was wondering if it was mostly geared towards >ppl 'in' feminist s-f/f--i mean like authors & other industry ppl? > i am seriously considering going, & i just wanted to make sure, since >i'm fr. the east coast & am planning on asking my parents/fam for $ for >my b-day to put towards this! so it'd be a rather large commitment on my >part & i wanted to be sure that as an avid reader/fan (but not writer), >i wouldn't feel like a total moron. I've never been to Wiscon, but I am hoping to go this year. A friend and I may be driving up from Central Illinois. I write, she doesn't. Keep in touch; maybe we can meet up in Madison. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:57:18 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: 28 days It's funny--when I read the original comment I just thought it was amusing. Not because I think PMS often affects how a woman behaves; not because I really understand it at all (I'm less aware of my own menstrual cycle than almost anyone I know because it really doesn't do much); but because I spend a lot of my time around men and you just never get to talk about it. ("So, John, my period's been really light for the last few months, do you think it's because I started serious long-distance biking four months ago? Has that happened to you?") Almost any lighthearted comment on the subject amuses me, cuz it's rare. Sometimes it seems like there's a really fine line between comments, or topics, that seem to stereotype women as being slaves to their reproductive system, and comments that acknowledge a certain body (no pun intended) of experience and understanding that women have. And of course that line is in different places for different people. I don't have kids, so if my company had a women's group that talked about childcare and flextime and so on, I'd be really bored. On the other hand, to have a women's group at work that *doesn't* address the issue of splitting career and family would be an injustice to the many women who're having trouble with that. Hell, I remember being irritated (when I was thirteen) that every book about physical activity for women wanted to talk about menstruation and what you could do while pregnant. Booooring. Tell me something important already. Now, although I've never been pregnant and don't have plans to be, I love to read those sections so I can think about what I would and wouldn't have to cut out or change if I wanted to have kids. (I still don't care about whether it'll help my cramps. I don't get 'em.) It's a fine line. We all end up on the wrong side of it sometimes. To wrench this back to SF: I *love* when characters talk about birth control. I love it when the main characters have kids (who can't take care of themselves). I just love to see that kind of stuff. Even if it shouldn't be a woman's responsibility, the fact is, only men get to ignore it. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:59:51 -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: BDG nominations: Ring of Swords, The Falling Woman In-Reply-To: <19990220231153555.AAA246.217@jennifer.actioneer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > OK, I'll nominate a couple this time around: > > Ring of Swords, by Eleanor Arnason > $13.95 Paperback - 382 pages (January 1995) > Tor Books; ISBN: 0312890168 > > > Why I'm nominating this one: it's a swell book. The gender stuff is key > but integral to the story. Well written, as are all but her earliest book. > I figure we're probably due for a sequel to this or another book from > Arnason soon, but it's not necessary in order to enjoy this one. Sad but true, Eleanor pretty much finished a sequel to Ring of Swords a couple of years ago, but Tor refused to buy it because Ring sold poorly. I've read parts of it and it's wonderful, but it's sitting in a desk drawer in her apartment in Minneapolis and may never see print since few publishers will buy the second book in a series. Arnason has at least one other novel-length manuscript in her drawer as well, but, again, hasn't been able to sell it. Instead she's been writing excellent short fiction which has been appearing in Asimov's, the Amazing Stories anthologies and elsewhere. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:09:37 +1100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: PMS: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:25 PM 2/20/99 -0600, Marina wrote: >Does that mean it's alright to use it as >the first explanation of _any_ aspect of women's behavior? As you said, >not all women have it. So how come that in the mass culture, PMS is >claimed to be as much of universal "woman's nature" as having a vagina? >Is it once again "woman's mind is in her womb"? > Of course not. Its the stupidity of such arguments I am attacking as much as anybody here - not the PMS itself. How come in the mass culture its embedded itself as a "myth"? The same way most sexist "myths" become embedded in the mass-culture - by mis-information, dis-information, and 30-second media reports which highlight extremely rare cases of women being acquitted of murder or mayhem, because of 'PMS'. So often, what happens to a few women, suddenly becomes something that happens to all women. Especially, if its 'negative' and can be used as a joke or put-down. I still hear 'women-driver' jokes - yet the statistics world-wide prove beyond a doubt, that women have far safer driving records than males - yet the "myth" persists.... Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:09:27 -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: wiscon query. In-Reply-To: <19990221015554.3685.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, 36 degrees wrote: > dorky question. > i'm sure a lot of ppl on here have been to wiscon before... it sounds > absolutely amazing, but i was wondering if it was mostly geared towards > ppl 'in' feminist s-f/f--i mean like authors & other industry ppl? > i am seriously considering going, & i just wanted to make sure, since > i'm fr. the east coast & am planning on asking my parents/fam for $ for > my b-day to put towards this! so it'd be a rather large commitment on my > part & i wanted to be sure that as an avid reader/fan (but not writer), > i wouldn't feel like a total moron. I've been going to Wiscon for 20 years or so and still enjoy it immensely. Wiscon is what's called a Sercon, meaning that it's aimed at people who have a serious interest in science fiction (mostly feminist, although there are always non-feminist activities too), but that includes fans as well as professionals, indeed fans make up the bulk of those attending. You'll find more of the writers who are being discussed on this list at Wiscon than at any other sf con as well. And the parties are great too. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:28:22 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: wiscon query. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I went to my first Wiscon last year and had an absolutely excellent time. Great bookstores, great parties, an absolutely fabulous list of programming choices, what's not to like? Of course, some of my friends are glad I didn't win the auction for Xena: Warrior Yardbutt and see how I was going to get that back home to the Bay Area. I got persuaded to go to Wiscon at the Oakland Potlatch last year by meeting up with some of the Madison/Midwest fen, and I'm glad I was persuadable. Needless to say, I'm heading back in May. If you can spare the time and the money, come join us in Madison... Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 22:43:16 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Wiscon for Novices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I went for the first time two years ago. I knew no one, and I came from the West Coast, which sounds like it's much farther away than any of you contemplating this year's trip. I had a GREAT time! I talked with famous authors sitting at the next table during breakfast. You know what? They have to eat just like normal people. I went to workshops which had me standing up in my chair and waving my arm on to be called on by the teach---er, by the speaker. I went to slide shows where I laughed so hard I thought I was going to have to find a bathroom before the show was over. I paid an exorbitant amount for a T-shirt at the Tiptree auction, and wear it proudly still. I goggled at the number of beautiful women with Mohawk-type haircuts and tatoos sitting side-by-side with women in heels and--gulp--pearls. And there were even men there. Go. By all means, go. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:20:30 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: The Way We Talk In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Marina wrote: > The same as lots and lots of women in Victorian England genuinely felt > like "invalids" and fainted all the time -- cause they were taught they > should. Those tight-laced corsets had a lot to dowith it, too.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:28:52 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: VALERIA MARCHIONI Subject: Soft SF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think you are going mad with that stuff about "Hard" fanatastic literature, so I hope to help with a cutie: What is the SF, fantasy, utopian one women like and wish to write? Only try to see it from the opposite POV, often it brings up good news. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:59:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: LMOPE - Sant.'s comments / Bujold / High Hallack / BLUE PLACE cover Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sant.: Thanks for your interjections into the write up of LMOPE. Started my morning with a laugh! _____________ Anthea: I tend to think of Miles as resolving conflicts in more of a mind over matter way than a big phallic symbol way. &&&&&&&& We still have a limited number of bookplates signed by Andre Norton which we are requesting donations for (all our other bookplates and author signatures are always free, BTW) with the proceeds going to High Hallack. If anyone is interested, please contact me off list. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Guess I'm in a minority on the list, since the cover appealed to me (although upon reading the book I did feel the woman on the cover was a little young). As a bookseller, perhaps I've been biased by seeing my mystery customers who don't know Nicola's name from her SF work being drawn to pick up the book, in part because of the cover art. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:55:58 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: RFC822 error: More than one sender was specified. Second and following senders discarded. From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: wiscon query. In-Reply-To: <19990221015554.3685.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:55 PM 2/20/99 EST, johanna wrote: > dorky question. no such thing > i'm sure a lot of ppl on here have been to wiscon before... it sounds >absolutely amazing, but i was wondering if it was mostly geared towards >ppl 'in' feminist s-f/f--i mean like authors & other industry ppl? Possibly a slight misconception: cons are for people who read science fiction. "industry people" tend to have gotten that way from following their love of sff; many of them were fans before they became "filthy pros", and remain fans. > i am seriously considering going, GO! > & i wanted to be sure that as an avid reader/fan (but not writer), >i wouldn't feel like a total moron. You only have to remember two things: everyone was a neo once, so you have nothing to hide or be embarrassed about; and *talk to people*. That's what we're there for. > can a person >who goes alone & doesn't actually know anyone else there, & who >oscillates between being fairly outgoing & fairly shy, still meet ppl & >go to stuff (i don't mean panels, etc., i mean like the little parties & >other social gatherings that make up cons) & have fun? The parties are as open as the panels. If anyone (interesting, cute, pro, goddess-like, or whatever) isn't obviously busy or preoccupied, you are welcome to strike up a conversation, or to join the conversation in progress. & come to think of it -- there will be a lot of people on this list there, so you aren't even starting stone cold. Neil Neil Rest neilrest@enteract.com neilrest@tezcat.com Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. <<& when I'd gotten unable to count all that on my fingers, and wrote it down, I didn't add that all that happened not long after I'd figured that I'd never be able to get the time off to go to Australia as I'd planned so long >> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 09:13:24 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: 28 days It always annoys me when people relegate any strong opinion a woman might have to PMS. Yes, I know PMS is a real physical disorder. I also know that post partum hemorrhage is a real disorder. Both are serious and can be life threatening, neither are universal or even particularly common. There are some people on this and every other list who have strong and even annoying opinions almost every day. Does that mean he or she is in permanent PMS? The fact that people get measles doesn't mean that every time you suffer eye strain you should check for spots. Moods, tempers and diplomacy fluctuate for many reasons, and to suggest that these fluctuations in women are always due to their hormones is just one more bit of sexist disparagement. I know the comment was made lightly and the poster does not deserve to be flamed. It's just one of a type of comment I find irritating. Since most women of childbearing age are always either pregnant or pre, post or actually menstrual, one could dismiss everything about them by relating it to their physical condition. Meaning that only the male hormonal fluctuation is normal and the woman's is a defective counterpart. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:14:59 -0500 Reply-To: releon@syr.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Organization: Syracuse University Subject: BDG Nomination In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I've been thinking that I'd love to read some Tiptree, and would like to nominate some for the BDG, but I've never read anything by her (well, actually a short story once, long ago) and wouldn't know where to begin. Would it be possible to just nominate Tiptree, and if not, What do folks consider the best, most-important, or otherwise must-read of Tiptree/Sheldon or other nomes? Rudy Leon PhD Candidate Dept. of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:44:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: BDG nominations: Ring of Swords, The Falling Woman MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bastards! I'd buy it!! I loved Ring of Swords. I lent it to my friends--should have made them buy their own copies, eh? How can anyone not love, or--worse--ignore, a book that includes a discussion of a culture that sees all of our literature as "indecent" because it depicts male/female romance? As I recall, the only human text one young character thought he could read without being offended was Hamlet... Sheryl -----Original Message----- From: Michael Marc Levy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG nominations: Ring of Swords, The Falling Woman >On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > >> OK, I'll nominate a couple this time around: >> >> Ring of Swords, by Eleanor Arnason >> $13.95 Paperback - 382 pages (January 1995) >> Tor Books; ISBN: 0312890168 >> >> >> Why I'm nominating this one: it's a swell book. The gender stuff is key >> but integral to the story. Well written, as are all but her earliest book. >> I figure we're probably due for a sequel to this or another book from >> Arnason soon, but it's not necessary in order to enjoy this one. > >Sad but true, Eleanor pretty much finished a sequel to Ring of Swords a >couple of years ago, but Tor refused to buy it because Ring sold >poorly. I've read parts of it and it's wonderful, but it's sitting in a >desk drawer in her apartment in Minneapolis and may never see print >since few publishers will buy the second book in a series. Arnason has at >least one other novel-length manuscript in her drawer as well, but, >again, hasn't been able to sell it. Instead she's been writing excellent >short fiction which has been appearing in Asimov's, the Amazing Stories >anthologies and elsewhere. > >Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:28:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: 36 degrees Subject: Re: Wiscon for Novices Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain sharon (& many others) said about wiscon: > Go. By all means, go. thanks everyone for your v. quick & enthusiastic responses!! you've definitely persuaded me--now to figure out the finances & stuff... i knew that most cons were for the fans (certainly the one i've been going to for a few years is), but i also knew that wiscon has a morning of programming for writers, & i also have heard of cons specifically for ppl who run s-f/f cons... so i thought i'd check. thanks again for your thoughts & reassurances! johanna ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:20:26 +1300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jenny Rankine Subject: BDG: Ring of Swords MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Marc Levy wrote - Eleanor pretty much finished a sequel to Ring of Swords a couple of years ago, but Tor refused to buy it because Ring sold poorly. I've read parts of it and it's wonderful, but it's sitting in a desk drawer in her apartment in Minneapolis and may never see print since few publishers will buy the second book in a series. This is terrible news! I _really_ enjoyed Ring of Swords and have been hanging out for the sequel. It's so frustrating to know it's written, but that those of us who love feminist SF can't get to read it. So much for capitalism delivering what consumers want! Jenny R ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:01:48 -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: BDG The Female Man: Jael character In-Reply-To: <19990205004514.120.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Does Jael hate men? This is what I am wondering about the Jael character. She kills a man who attacks her, who doesnt allow her to say "no" to his advances. I really dont believe she hates men. I think she is the most fascinating character that goes beyond the 70s attitudes and is futuristic in that she clearly has what many women still dont have. Autonomy from men. Is that a hatred of men? Responding after being away for awhile, Bertina bmiller@medmail.mcg.edu On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Todd Mason wrote: > I don't think "Joanna's" attitude toward men is rabid or implacable. > Janet is not impressed with our culture (I don't get the impression > that most current women would gain her admiration too quickly, > either); the others have good reason to hate men thoroughly. > > Feeling guilty? > > > , all four principal characters have a rabid, implacable hatred of men > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:05:06 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Tanya M. Bouwman-Wozencraft" Subject: Re: PMS: The Way We Talk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/20/99 5:23:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, jalc@OZEMAIL.COM.AU writes: > Physical symptoms include 'bloating' because of fluid retention (swelling > ankles, and/or tummy&pelvis); raised blood pressure; and insomnia and > night-sweats. All of which could make anyone feel damn cranky and > irritable, or depressed, if they haven't been able to sleep for 3 nights > straight, and their swollen ankles hurt. > As an added comment to this. There is a disease called fibromyalgia which is a sleep disorder. A certain part of the sleep cycle is disrupted in people who have this disease. They complain of many different ailments, the most notable are depression, and pain all over their body. When researchers took "normal" people and deprived them of the same sleep cycle that fibromyalgia sufferers have disrupted, the result was that those "normal" people began to exhibit the same symptoms. The disruption of the sleep cycle can have serious side effects. Tanya