From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thu Apr 15 13:58:43 1999 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:26:36 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: lquilter@HOOKED.NET Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9904A" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:31:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather MacLean Subject: Re: Feminist SF vs. Utopia (Intelligence as techno) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Madrone wrote: >Does the person you refer to who is defining SF include ability of SF to >provide the reader with new points of view, and perhaps even paradigms? (Darko Suvin: Positions and presuppositions in science fiction, Kent, Ohio:1987; and especially his earlier Metamorphoses of science fiction : on the poetics and history of a literary genre, New Haven : Yale University Press, 1979) Yes, but only within a scientific (cause/effect, hypothesis/test/theory) method. > If >the science is speculative at the time of writing and turns out to be wrong >(as per Isaac Asimov) does that then remove the work from the list? > No. It just means the hypothesis was incorrect. Look at _Frankenstein_. But what is different about that work is that she extrapolates from the current (haha) electrical experiments of the time--she doesn't just have her characters fly to the moon powered by strap-on dew collectors, like Cyrano de Bergerac's hero. There -is- some overlap between these genres--Donawerth and Kolmerten (in Utopian & Science Fiction by Women) point this out early on as they fail to make clear distinctions between "utopias", "feminist fabulations," and "speculative fiction" -- for them, all fall under the umbrella of "literature of estrangement" (terminology taken from Suvin). Utopias inherently seem to be more political and didactic and based on saying how -this- world should be, whereas SF seems to focus on the consequences of a change in the textual world--thereby, not unintentionally, providing the reader a chance to stand back from her world and re-evaluate. I think that your point, which is that a world in which women are treated equally constitutes SF, -can- be valid--but I maintain that many of the early texts were more oriented towards being utopias. One could argue that the "scientific" mode of thinking is so inherently patriarchal that it's a good thing there were so many women's utopias out there to provide a different point of view... >Actually, I much prefer ---ACH! I can't believe this, I have forgotten her >name...the wonderful SF writer who did a short story where women were able to >communicate with aliens because male humans had always seemed alien to >them.... > Well, there's the Suzette Haden Elgin's _Native Tongue_ series... Cheers, Heather =) .. http://www.zipcon.net/~hlm ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:19:44 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: Feminist SF vs. Utopia (Intelligence as techno) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/31/99 10:33:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, h.maclean@ZIPCON.NET writes: << One could argue that the "scientific" mode of thinking is so inherently patriarchal >> I don't usually stay up so late, have been watching the Kosovo thing with major trepidation (did not think I would see such again in my lifetime.) Interestingly, I find observe, hypothesize, test, evaluate, to be far from patriarchal. This is basic survival process, and I have seen women use the method naturally far more often than men. And I am not certain that male culture in our century (or the last) really grasps the significance of the scientific method. So many things...fame, money, competition, face...take precedence to the simple, but rigorously honest, methods of science. The process itself has so often been subsumed and perverted to ends other than survival when it is in the hands of the male culture... Madrone, wishing on a star with all her heart ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:13:12 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Kate Wilhelm In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > In practical terms, however, Feminist SF as a recognizable modern > literary movement pretty clearly stems from Russ, LeGuin, and, less > explicitly perhaps, Kate Wilhelm. (IMO, of course). > Thanks for a very useful post! I really like Kate Wilhelm (who seems to me to straddle several genres, not only science fiction), and would be interested in hearing more about why you think she's so influential. It's easy to trace the influence of Russ and Le Guin, given their voluminous critical work, as well as their sf masterpieces *The Female Man* and *The Left Hand of Darkness*. Has Wilhelm written any essays? (not that I'm suggesting that writing essays is essential in being influential to a genre's development - I'd just like to read them if they exist). I find it interesting that Russ's novel last month on BDG generated so much discussion, while Le Guin's generated so little. I suspect that *Left Hand...* or *The Dispossessed* might have generated far more. I read a review of Le Guin's *Dancing at the Edge of the World* which began by comparing Russ and Le Guin's reception in the sf community: "When Joanna Russ was given the Pilgrim Award by the Science Fiction Research Association in 1988, there was great indignation among the (male) membership of SFRA over the blatant politicism of the award committee's decision. When Le Guin won the same award in 1989, the award committee's decision met with universal approval. Isn't Le Guin as politically committed a feminist as Joanna Russ? Yes; but as her concern with hurt feelings shows, she is not so aggressive a feminist. When Russ received the award, she wrote no acceptance speech; when Le Guin received it, she wrote hers in the persona of the organization's 'Mad Great-Aunt Ursula in Oregon'" (Science Fiction Studies, vol 17 (1990), 117) Sorry for the length of this quotation, but I wonder if it might be interesting to interrogate our group's scanty discussion about Le Guin's book in relation to it. Perhaps *Fisherman* is merely not a very rich text? Or perhaps our reaction is related to Le Guin's brand of feminism? apologies for scattered thoughts way too late at night. I think I see the sun rising - I'd better get to bed before rambling on any more! pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:13:17 -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: Feminist SF vs. Utopia (Intelligence as techno) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > Actually, I much prefer ---ACH! I can't believe this, I have > forgotten her name...the wonderful SF writer who did a short story > where women were able to communicate with aliens because male humans > had always seemed alien to them.... Could this be "The Women Men Don't See" by James Tiptree, Jr.? -- 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, 1 Apr 1999 11:08:10 -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: Kate Wilhelm--Russ, Le Guin, The Pilgrim Award In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Pamela Bedore wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Michael Marc Levy wrote: > > > In practical terms, however, Feminist SF as a recognizable modern > > literary movement pretty clearly stems from Russ, LeGuin, and, less > > explicitly perhaps, Kate Wilhelm. (IMO, of course). > > > > Thanks for a very useful post! I really like Kate Wilhelm (who seems to > me to straddle several genres, not only science fiction), and would be > interested in hearing more about why you think she's so influential. It's > easy to trace the influence of Russ and Le Guin, given their voluminous > critical work, as well as their sf masterpieces *The Female Man* and *The > Left Hand of Darkness*. Has Wilhelm written any essays? (not that I'm > suggesting that writing essays is essential in being influential to a > genre's development - I'd just like to read them if they exist). I don't know if Wilhelm has written any essays. I mentioned her as a "less explicit" influence on the development of feminist SF for several reasons. First, although few of her stories deal with explicit feminist themes, simply by presenting strong female protagonists, many of them working scientists, she pushes an implicit feminist perspective. I'm thinking of books like Juniper Time and The Clewiston Test here, as well as any number of short stories. Second, simply by being a visible major writer who made no attempt to hide behind a gender-ambiguous pseudonym or to write stories in imitation of those writen by her male colleagues, she made it clear that women could write SF of the highest quality at a time when this wasn't entirely obvious to many people. Third, through her work, along with her husband Damon Knight, as one of the founders of and long-time teachers at the Clarion Writer's workshop, she has actively nurtured and mentored any number of major feminist writers, including Vonda McIntyre and others. > > "When Joanna Russ was given the Pilgrim Award by the Science Fiction > Research Association in 1988, there was great indignation among the (male) > membership of SFRA over the blatant politicism of the award committee's > decision. When Le Guin won the same award in 1989, the award committee's > decision met with universal approval. Isn't Le Guin as politically > committed a feminist as Joanna Russ? Yes; but as her concern with hurt > feelings shows, she is not so aggressive a feminist. When Russ received > the award, she wrote no acceptance speech; when Le Guin received it, she > wrote hers in the persona of the organization's 'Mad Great-Aunt Ursula in > Oregon'" (Science Fiction Studies, vol 17 (1990), 117) > An important word here is "among." As someone who was tangentially involved in that decision I can assure you that many male members of the SFRA were entirely in support of the decision to give the award to Russ. The award was controversial, however, for three reasons, one possibly legitimate, two not. The possibly legitimate reason was that Russ had actually written far less literary criticism than had any previous winner of the award. Those who supported her receiving of the award, myself included, argued for her on the grounds that her small number of essays had been enormously important and influential. The two IMO illegitimate reasons why some (mostly but not entirely male) members of the SFRA were upset by her having received the award were 1) because of the radical nature of her thought which, sadly, offended some, and 2) her aggressive personality which, again, some found offensive. As far as Le Guin's receiving the award goes, this was greeted with far more approval (although still not universal approval) for the perhaps legitimate reason that Le Guin had done considerably more academic or quasi academic-style writing and, I suspect, for the illegitimate reason that Le Guin is simply, in the opinion of many people, a nicer and more tactful person. This was all back in the late 1980s, but it's worth noting that a similar situation occurred a couple of years ago when Marlene Barr received the Pilgrim Award for her scholarship. Barr is a pure academic critic with an enormous publishing record, but she's also a very outspoken feminist whose personality some find abrasive. Those opposed to Barr receiving the award entered their surface criticism of her having been chosen for the award primarily on her language skills--she's a somewhat clumsy prose stylist--but it's clear that a significant minority of (mostly but not entirely male) colleagues also found her ideas offensive. > pamela bedore > department of english > simon fraser university Mike Levy Department of English University of Wisconsin-Stout ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:37:31 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: Kate Wilhelm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/1/99 6:13:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, pebedore@SFU.CA writes: > I really like Kate Wilhelm (who seems to > me to straddle several genres, not only science fiction), and would be > interested in hearing more about why you think she's so influential. It's > easy to trace the influence of Russ and Le Guin, given their voluminous > critical work, as well as their sf masterpieces *The Female Man* and *The > Left Hand of Darkness*. Has Wilhelm written any essays? I think much of her influence stems not only from novels such as WHERE LATE THE SWEET BIRDS SANG but from her teaching. For a long, long time (twenty years?) she and Damon Knight taught the last two weeks of Clarion, the sf/f writing workshop at MSU, where writers such as Octavia Butler and Vonda McIntyre (and me) got their start. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:08:26 -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: Russ /. LeGuin BDG In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Apr 99 06:13:12 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >I find it interesting that Russ's novel last month on BDG generated so >much discussion, while Le Guin's generated so little. I suspect that much of the problem is that it's harder to discuss a collection of short stories. I remember a few of the stories; you remember a few of the stories; she remembers a few of the stories; there's less guaranteed overlap. When one person comments on something, she doesn't get as many takers because not as many people remember that story. At least, that's how I found it. Then, too, many people had clear memories of the simpler stories--which we seemed to find lacking. I thought it was a very mixed collection. I found that I enjoyed the writing itself far more than I usually do in science fiction; and that carried me over the bumpy parts. We've all heard the claim that "science fiction is a literature of ideas" but sometimes I really wish that SF writers would put a bit more energy into creating a literature of words... This is not to say that LeGuin didn't pack many ideas into this book. But I found them harder to discuss because there were so many pieces and I couldn't decide which one to focus on (and many people tried to talk about the book as a whole, which I found impossible). jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:38:12 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Doris Lessing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I would like to put in a good word (or a moderately good word) for the "Yes the author IS the character" school of thought. Well, not really a good word, exactly, but sort of some musing. Well, jolly old Lessing isn't Anna Wulf, and Anna (thank you for adding the name, many many kudos to you Dave for being the first guy I know of to enjoy Lessing) is hardly the picture of mental health. And yet...and yet... the _way_ Lessing writes about women doesn't really reflect full-on feminism, happiness with being female, etc., and she writes in this way so consistently and in such a diversity of forms that one does take a flying ("death defying triple somersault" (which famous female sf author uses this phrase all the time? Anyone? Anyone?) leap and say that her characters plural do reflect her attitudes. Especially when so much of her work is so autobiographical, sort of. This thought led to my musing (as I attempted to find something clean and unwrinkled to wear to work) about women and greatness and writerness. Of course, the concept of greatness is pretty fraught, and there are certainly many different ways of being great. Lessing, I think, goes for the classic "great [male] writer" thing. She writes these huge-o epics (I think they fulfill many of the definitions for epics, actually) She does major sociopolitical commentary. She writes intricate, occasionally baffling stuff. She is highly idiosyncratic and acknowledges no responsibility to anyone but her muse, at least as far as writing is concerned. (That's a lot of what the GN is about too, the freedom to write exactly as you want, with no self-editing for social reasons) This means that if she wants to write sexist or write racist, she goes right ahead, because it's her muse. It's kind of a question of priorites. Lessing wants to go head to head with jeez, I don't know, Thomas Mann or somebody. For her, writing is responding to a particular tradition in the terms of that tradition. It's a snobbish, elitist kind of approach, one that is rather alluring to me. Like being able to kick ass in a dead white male philosophy class, on its own terms, and wipe the floor with all the horrid little pseudo-Marxist boys. (A pleasure rare, I speak from experience) But you really do give up or miss out on a lot in taking on the system on its own terms. I for instance am not a very theorized feminist, and I have only slowly, because I made it a specific priority and had a bit of luck, become able to really work with other women in egalitarian ways. Other writers see writing as having a different purpose--challenging the tradition, or saying specific things about women, gender etc. They write very differently from Lessing. More responsibly, I would argue. However, because I am a marxist in a very approximate way, I see society in terms of dialectic. A good dialectic, here. A writer like Russ balances a writer like Lessing, and vice versa. A world of writers who individualistically took on the old, elitist white boy canon would be pretty bad, but then again, a world where no one did that would have no Lessing, no Carter, and no incentive to read the canon, which has some pretty interesting stuff in it. Then too, I think it's pretty healthy to get peeved about a comment like Lessing's little smell remark. Lists like this are places to work out being peeved, to make sure one has the perfect, nuanced interpretation (ha ha) before unleashing it on a harsh, unsympathetic non-feminst sf world. >>> Dave Samuelson 03/31 4:44 PM >>> It never fails to amaze me that otherwise intelligent readers can simply equate the musings of a character in literature with a blanket statement by the author about all readers. Anna Wulf is not a picture of mental health in this book, before or after her acknowledged bout of madness. I see her "sexual" (?) obsessions as part of her disturbed mental makeup, which in other situations makes her particularly able to look sideways at the casual and obsessive assumptions of others. Even if it were proved that Lessing in fact hated her own menstrual smell, I would still separate the book and the character from the author. What I know about Lessing shows her to be a pretty cantankerous individual but few writers (and neither do I) fit my ideal image of "what a person ought to be." Everybody tends to assume that "eye level" means her/his own. Is feminism equally dependent on the eye of the observer? Does it mean only what each individual woman herself believes, with no allowances for what others do and believe? I'm reminded of the long-term furor over Molly Bloom in Ulysses. Whether she is or is not a "real woman" seems to depend on the prejudices of an era and of each observer in it. Or how many moviegoers and even some published critics tend to equate individual characters in cinema with all men/women, whites/blacks, Arabs/Jews, Asians/Latinos. Art may feature broad and even universal themes, but characters can't be universally acceptable and convincingly idiosyncratic. Should writers use "focus groups" to find out what all readers find acceptable? Joyce Jones wrote: > I read the Golden Notebook, that was enough for me. I foolishly thought > that anyone believing in the equality of all people would only naturally be > a feminist. Then I got to the part where she expresses complete disgust > with the smell of a menstruating woman stating that she always feared people > could smell her menstruating no matter how clean she tried to keep herself. > She would pour pots and pots of water over herself whenever she went to the > bathroom trying to eradicate the smell, but she always felt it was still > there. However, how she loved her smell after she had just had sex with a > man, it was delicious. Any woman expressing such revulsion at her normal > female bodily functions certainly couldn't describe herself as a feminist. > I'm glad she recognizes that she is not. I rather think of her as an > anti-womanist and have not had any desire to read anything else she writes. > > Susan commends Lessing for being an author gutsy enough to risk making her > reader "really angry." I love Joanna Russ, and she can make me really > angry, however I feel we're both angry about the same things. An author who > can make me really angry by stating that I am a lesser being because of my > sex or race or personhood in general is not one I feel any further need to > let into my life. The old adage of "so many books, so little time" comes to > mind. I'd rather spend my time on authors who speak to me as a full person. > > Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:18:56 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Doris Lessing (Was:Where does Feminist sf Begin?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Which story was in the Playboy (!?!) collection? And who else is in there? I find it really interesting that Lessing is there, really revealing in fact. They run La Paglia too, don't they? I mean, I'm sure there's plenty of good stories in there, I just suspect their over all motivations. >>> Joe Sutliff Sanders 03/31 12:27 PM >>> At 10:47 AM 3/31/99 -0600, you wrote: >Forgive, oh forgive the snippiness of my last post, and also forgive that I >seemed to imply that no men anywhere liked Lessing. I'm not really mean, >I'm just drawn that way. LOL! By the way, I just read Lessing's story in the Playboy collection, and it was the only one I couldn't bring myself to finish. Interestingly, and perhaps as a contrary sign to the stereotype we're drawing, I stopped reading the story because it was too dry and had very little to do with human feelings/relationships/passions. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:41:15 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: something way OT but positive! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/31/99 3:49:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: > On a similar note -- I've heard that Oklahoma State Legislature has > recently proposed a change to the legal definition of rape, to include > the cases when the person is "too intoxicated to consent". > > Really?? In Oklahoma?? Marina, there must be dancing in the streets! If there isn''t we'll have to organize some. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 19:42:52 -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: Doris Lessing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gosh a man who really does read Playboy "for the stories"! (shame on me for taking up the cheap joke) Hey Joe! donna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 21:07:45 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Doris Lessing - Toni Morrison How sorry I was to have offended Dave's literary sensibilities, but I feel compelled to give further examples of my lack of scholastic expertise. I read Toni Morrison's _Beloved_ and was completely drawn in by her mysterious style and the way she could define the problems of an oppressed people and give us hope for growth. Note, I say us because even though I am white and there were some horrid white people in that book, I did not think their depiction spoke for the entire race. Then I read _Song of Solomon_ which, silly me, I thought would have some profound ideas expressed about love. Again I was drawn into her style and characterizations. Then I got to the part where the mother is "addicted" to breastfeeding her older boy, I can't remember his age, but he may have been as old as 4. I do remember that because mother and son were "caught" in this act he was bestowed the nickname of Milkman. The mother was shown to be at least selfish and probably incestuous as well. OK, Morrison's spell over me was broken, and I did not face the rest of the book with the feeling that I was home and we both spoke the same language. A larger feeling of alienation came when I got to the part where a group of black men form a vigilante group and begin killing random white people. This was set up very well by random killings of blacks, so that when one of the men expresses the opinion that there are no "innocent" white people, you might as well kill one as another, it seemed an understandable position. I don't think such a position should be shown to be creditable. I also think that if an author has a character make such a statement in order to display the reasons and emotions behind it, she is obligated to specifically refute those words through another character. I do not think Toni Morrison is out there randomly killing white people. I do not think she believes such an action is acceptable. But I also think that if an author states a position that is completely opposite to her own, she needs at some point to refute it. It seems quite likely that neither Doris Lessing's nor Toni Morrison's careers are going to be hurt by their reluctance to come to me for literary tips. But, non intellectual that I am, I know that if I'm offered a choice of books to read, theirs are going to go toward the bottom of the pile. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:31:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Doris Lessing - Toni Morrison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:07 PM 1/04/99 -0800, you wrote: >A larger feeling of alienation came when I got to the part where a group of >black men form a vigilante group and begin killing random white people. >This was set up very well by random killings of blacks, so that when one of >the men expresses the opinion that there are no "innocent" white people, you >might as well kill one as another, it seemed an understandable position. I >don't think such a position should be shown to be creditable. I also think >that if an author has a character make such a statement in order to display >the reasons and emotions behind it, she is obligated to specifically refute >those words through another character. I do not think Toni Morrison is out >there randomly killing white people. I do not think she believes such an >action is acceptable. But I also think that if an author states a position >that is completely opposite to her own, she needs at some point to refute >it. Why? Nabokov never did in "Lolita", told entirely from the point of view of a pedophile. When an author includes a main character who is ostensibly the hero doing something morally reprehensible, it is to prove a point: people are fallible, or at least this specific person or persons are. And when they do not condemn it, this doesn't mean they condone it - it means they want the reader to make up his or her own mind. I don't know about anyone else here, but I much prefer this to the sanctimonious emotional manipulation a vast majority of authors and film-makers (mostly American - sorry, but it's true, Americans do tend to like their morals clear-cut) seem to favour. Why, if a character is seriously flawed (like the breastfeeding mother) does it automatically mean that this behavior is condoned by the author? The breastfeeding mother isn't meant to represent all of woman/motherhood - she's only meant to represent herself, her character. And, sad to say, there ARE women out there with severe problems when it comes to letting their children go. Not politically correct, not right, not the way it should be, but the way it is. If all authors only wrote about us as being infallible superwomen who never put a foot wrong (or, conversely, men as being infallible he-men who never put a foot wrong), that would be the real fiction. The thing is, when an author makes a character do something reprehensible and lets them get away with it, so to speak, it isn't always to be taken as an endorsement. It's rather what I like to term "fictional journalism" - seeing something in the mind's eye and simply recording it. I for one would rather pass my own judgement on a character than have the author constantly tell me what to think and feel. Just my two cents, Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:09:08 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Doris Lessing - Toni Morrison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I bet everyone is going to get very VERY cross about this. I think you really can evaluate what authors mean by using specific characters, provided that you evaluate in the aggregate. To give an example, one of my favorite authors and betes noires, Robertson Davies. He doesn't like poor people or believe in social justice. Why do I say this? Because, over his entire oevre, all the good characters have been wealthy, either through inheritance or because they "earned" it. There are no real major good poor characters, and poor people who complain about injustice are repeatedly shown to be whiners, incompetent, immoral, etc. The only good working class character out of perhaps twelve books is a private detective who serves the interest of the rich people, and he is clearly less suave, witty, smart than they are. This really burns me up. When I read Davies, which I do, I am constantly suspended between outrage and enjoyment. I think this is actually healthy, because it requires that I engage with the books and requires that I have a sort of ambivalent attitude towards all sorts of things. As Orwell so memorably wrote in his essay on Dali, one has to hold in one's head at the same time both the vileness of the moral position and the undeniable pleasures of the text. The fact that Davies is brilliant does not make him correct, and the fact that he is wrong does not make him unenjoyable for everyone. However, I bet that some of my really-o truly-o poor friends might find Davies a bit hard to take, and I wouldn't blame them. I think it's important that people sometimes have even a simplistic moral approach to literature, as long as we don't have, say, commissars sending people off to the gulag. It's so easy to forget, when we are priviledged, that most people aren't. If a few people get steamed every so often, that reminds us. Then too, I have often learned a lot from shooting my mouth off. Sometimes I figured out that I was wrong, sometimes that I was right even though I sounded dumb. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:38:14 -0500 Reply-To: viv@psnyc.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Viv Sutherland Organization: Public Systems, Inc. Subject: Re: Feminist SF vs. Utopia (Intelligence as techno) Comments: To: "Janice E. Dawley" In-Reply-To: <37037EFD.6CAE9CFB@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > "Demetria M. Shew" wrote: > > Actually, I much prefer ---ACH! I can't believe this, I have > > forgotten her name...the wonderful SF writer who did a short > > story > > where women were able to communicate with aliens because > > male humans > > had always seemed alien to them.... > Could this be "The Women Men Don't See" by James Tiptree, > Jr.? > > -- > Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT I can't imagine who *else* it could be, and I'm wondering why no one else has mentioned Tiptree in these discussions... (of course I've just joined the list, and for all I know you've just spent 3 solid months discussing Tiptree's work and are all now heartily sick of the subject ... ). Viv Viv Sutherland Public Systems, Inc. viv@psnyc.com http://www.psnyc.com "There are no stupid questions, only impatient techs." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:03:53 EST Reply-To: Gpphh@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ping Guo Subject: WAR BLUE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI, I AM A CHINESE FEMINIST FROM BEIJING. I LIKE SMART SOULS ON THIS LIST , THANKS EVERY ONE. I PUT MY WRITING HERE, HOPE YOU ENJOY, EVERY ONE WELCOME TO CORRECT ME. LONG LIVE SISTERHOOD, HAPPY EASTER, PING ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WAR BLUE WHOLE FULL MOON SHINNING ABOVE OCEAN, PEACEFULLY. NAMED BLUE MOON, AS SECOND FULL MOON IN MARCH. WHEN THE MOON LIGHT BRIGHTENING THE WORLD, WAR BLUE DARKENING HEARTS. TWO FULL MOON DOUBLE ROUNDED BOTH IN JANUARY AND MARCH. LAST TIME HAPPENED, WAS IN 1915, MY DAD WAS BORN, HE IS 84 YEARS YOUNG NOW. WAR WAS GOING ON THEN, NEXT TIME, SAME GREAT SKY SHOW, WILL BE IN 2018, WAR WILL BE GOING ON THEN, FOR SURE. HOW COULD YOU BE SO SURE ? SO CYNICAL ? YOU BET, I LEARNED TO BE, I WAS A DAY TIME DREAMER, CHANGE TO A FULL TIME HUMAN NATURE MEDITATOR. FEBRUARY WAS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH, NO WONDER, NO FULL MOON. I HEARD A LADY SAID: ALL OF HER LIFE, ALL SHE LEARNED ABOUT HISTORY, TURNED OUT ALL ABOUT MEN AND WAR, WAR AND MEN. COLD WAR, HOT WAR, EARTH WAR, STAR WAR, NO WAR, NO FUN, NO BOMB, NO GUN, DIED, WOUNDED, WIDOWED, ORPHANED, ARE WE SICK AND TIRED, TOTALLY ENOUGH OF THIS KILLING GAME ? SINCE SUN AND MOON WERE SHOCKING MUTED LONG LONG TIME AGO, A SMART NO NONSENSE, ONLY COMMON SENSE ET CARRYING BY UFO, SHOULD FLY SCREAMING: STOP IT !!! HOW DUMB YOU EARTHY HUMAN IDIOTS. IF CHARACTER SHAPES FATE, HOW MUCH HUMAN NATURE SHAPES HUMAN HISTORY ? IS THAT TRUE, HISTORY WITHOUT WAR WOULD NOT BE HUMAN HISTORY ? HUMAN AND WAR FULLY COEXISTING. HUMAN BEINGS ARE BEING IN WAR, WAR BEING, NO WONDER, WARRING, KEEP FIGHTING, WAR BLUE KEEP MOANING, NO ENDING, ONLY REPEATING. SINCE HISTORY IS SO HOPELESS, HOW ABOUT HERSTORY ? HER STORY ? FOR EXIT OF WAR SHADOW, SHOULD WE PICTURE A LADY ONLY LAND ? NO MATTER, AN UTOPIA, A SCIENCE FICTION, OR NONSENSE IMAGINATION, HOW MUCH COULD WE BE ENLIGHTENED BY HER ? AT LEAST TWO THINGS FOR SURE, LESS WAR, LESS RAPE, YOU BET, I DARE TO BET, DARE YOU ? FULL BLUE MOON IS TURNING YELLOW, DISAPPEARING IN OCEAN, BRILLIANT MOONSET. NEXT TURN, TWENTY YEARS LATER, COULD WE BE A LITTLE LESS STUPID ? SHOULD WE LEARN TO BE A LITTLE MORE PEACEFUL FROM OUR MOTHER NATURE ? TIME OUT, LAST RUN, SINCE WE NEVER BAHAVE WELL IN NATURE, SOONER OR LATER, NO TIME, NO SPACE, WOULD BE LEFT FOR LOUSY HUMAN BEINGS. THAT WOULD BE THE END OF HISTORY, THE END OF THE WORLD, HUMAN WORLD ONLY, SUN WILL BE SHINNING, MOON WILL BE ROUNDING, NO HUMAN, NO WAR. THIS WAR BLUE, WRITING SINGING UNDER BLUE MOON LIGHT, NOT FOR SMART SOULS, NOT FOR ALL APRIL FOOLS, FOR SURE. PING 3/31/1999 PACIFIC RANCH, CA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:35:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Doris Lessing (Was:Where does Feminist sf Begin?) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:18 PM 4/1/99 -0600, you wrote: >Which story was in the Playboy (!?!) collection? And who else is in there? >I mean, I'm sure there's plenty >of good stories in there, I just suspect their over all motivations. > As well you might be. The reasons I can give that authors (such as myself) submit to Playboy would be that it is the only market for short speculative fiction that gets one's name out across genre boundaries, potentially helping your sales/recognition/fame/success/avoiding being labeled "just" a genre writer. Also, they pay an enormous amount of money. My first story (rather short) sold for around USD 100, but a story in Playboy fetches upwards of USD 2,000! Who else is in the collection...let me try to remember...Phil Dick, Ray Bradbury, Terry Bisson, Waldrop, Harlan Ellison, Fred Pohl...I think the only two women contributers (ignoring the editor) were Lessing and...Le Guin! If I remember correctly, her story ran under the byline "U.K. Le Guin." I can't remember the title of Lessing's story...but it was about a race of aliens who take on the form of light beams and try to warn those crazy Californians that a major earthquake is sure to hit soon--only to discover that the humans are already aware of the oncoming tragedy and aren't concerned. Can anyone help me? I seem to remember that the title was reminiscent of that horrible Carpenters song "Calling Occupants.....". Joe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:38:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: Doris Lessing In-Reply-To: <001201be7ca1$bef5a0e0$dab11b26@donna> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:42 PM 4/1/99 -0500, you wrote: >was the only one I couldn't bring myself to finish............Joe> > >Gosh a man who really does read Playboy "for the stories"! > > >(shame on me for taking up the cheap joke) >Hey Joe! donna You couldn't tell that I read Playboy? Couldn't you feel me undressing you with my eyes when first we met? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhnononono....I don't read Playboy--that's why I got the collection! No pictures, see? That way I don't have to worry about damaging my feminist agenda or being kicked out of the cabal. Or, more importantly, about bringing down on my wee noggin the justified wrath of my wife... {Hey back! Did you ever return that swimming suit?} Joe ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:47:43 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Toni Morrison - Lolita Santanico wrote: "Why, if a character is seriously flawed (like the breastfeeding mother) does it automatically mean that this behavior is condoned by the author? The breastfeeding mother isn't meant to represent all of woman/motherhood - she's only meant to represent herself, her character. And, sad to say, there ARE women out there with severe problems when it comes to letting their children go. Not politically correct, not right, not the way it should be, but the way it is. If all authors only wrote about us as being infallible superwomen who never put a foot wrong (or, conversely, men as being infallible he-men who never put a foot wrong), that would be the real fiction." Boy, did I ever fail to express my opinion clearly! I do not think that a mother who chooses to breastfeed her child for 4 years is seriously flawed. My problem was with the book's suggestion that a "prolonged" breastfeeding relationship is evidence of a mother's emotional problems. That seems to show a very poor understanding of a mother-child relationship. This lack of understanding, however, did exemplify a major fault I found with the book which was that, though the title was _Song of Solomon_ there was not a healthy loving relationship in the whole book. The mother-child relationship could have been, but she chose to show the breastfeeding bond as a symptom of disease rather than love. I was surprised that you would somehow think to hold _Lolita_ up as an example of an author's successfully representing a view opposite his own. You write: "When an author includes a main character who is ostensibly the hero doing something morally reprehensible, it is to prove a point: people are fallible, or at least this specific person or persons are. And when they do not condemn it, this doesn't mean they condone it - it means they want the reader to make up his or her own mind." Well here I am just a naive United Statesian thinking pedophilia goes way past the point of human fallibility. But come to think of it, it was a good example. Toni Morrison shows this woman to be seriously flawed because she breastfed her son, while Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert just to be fallible for sexually pursuing a 12 year old girl. I think the authors were making value judgements, and they're not ones that I choose to agree with. I don't have to agree with everything an author says, but when her values seem so very far from mine, her works just become unimportant to me. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:06:47 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Fisherman vs Female Man Pamela Bedore wrote: "Sorry for the length of this quotation, but I wonder if it might be interesting to interrogate our group's scanty discussion about Le Guin's book in relation to (Female Man). Perhaps *Fisherman* is merely not a very rich text? Or perhaps our reaction is related to Le Guin's brand of feminism?" I think you were right in stating that Left Hand of Darkness or The Dispossessed would have generated more discussion than Fisherman. I did like these stories, but stories are difficult to discuss as a whole. Also, you're comparing a major work by Russ with a minor one of Le Guin's. I think it was a shame that we picked this book to be the one of hers we discussed, but we're doing another one of Griffith's (first Ammonite, now Slow River). So maybe there's hope we can get one of the meatier Le Guin's later. It's been a long time since I read Left Hand, but I know The Dispossessed could generate some strong political debate. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:11:08 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Jaran discussion begins Monday Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Next Monday we begin discussion of our April BDG selection _Jaran_, by Kate Elliot. Before then I thought it might be helpful to review a few points about the discussion. As I've said before, these are just rules we made up. If you have ideas for improvement, or even just complaints, please email me! The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the FSFFU list, just focus the discussion. New book discussions begin monthly on the first Monday of the month, directly on the main FSFFU list. Other works can of course be discussed at the same time on the list. Also, it's fine to discuss a book before the scheduled date, just remember to include spoilers in your early postings. If you want to initiate discussion about a book the group has already discussed that's OK as well, but it's polite to look through the archives first. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. It would also be helpful to include the title or initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. There's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members (that's you!) are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. Upcoming discussions: May 3 Sheri Tepper: Grass June 7 Nicola Griffith: Slow River July 5 Connie Willis: To Say Nothing of the Dog Aug 2 Octavia Butler: Wild Seed Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:29:26 -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: Doris Lessing (Was:Where does Feminist sf Begin?) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe Sutliff Sanders wrote: > If I remember correctly, her story ran under the byline "U.K. Le Guin." > I hope not. The only story of hers I recall having that byline was "Nine Lives" and she swore she would never make that compromise again. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:34:55 -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: Doris Lessing (Was:Where does Feminist sf Begin?) In-Reply-To: <37058B16.4B0F518A@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Joe Sutliff Sanders wrote: >If I remember correctly, her story ran under the byline "U.K. Le Guin." And Dave Samuelson wrote: >I hope not. The only story of hers I recall having that byline was "Nine Lives" and >she swore she would never make that compromise again. "Nine Lives" is indeed the story that is included in the Playboy collection. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- A New Stereophonic Sound Spectacular "...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, 2 Apr 1999 23:12:38 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:47 AM 2/04/99 -0800, you wrote: >Boy, did I ever fail to express my opinion clearly! I do not think that a >mother who chooses to breastfeed her child for 4 years is seriously flawed. >My problem was with the book's suggestion that a "prolonged" breastfeeding >relationship is evidence of a mother's emotional problems. That seems to >show a very poor understanding of a mother-child relationship. This lack of >understanding, however, did exemplify a major fault I found with the book >which was that, though the title was _Song of Solomon_ there was not a >healthy loving relationship in the whole book. The mother-child >relationship could have been, but she chose to show the breastfeeding bond >as a symptom of disease rather than love. Then you wouldn't classify breastfeeding a child for _four years_ as symptomatic of emotional problems? I'm sure she loved the child, no doubt about that - but _four years_? I'm sorry, but I would classify that as being symptomatic of _something_ at least slightly awry. >I was surprised that you would somehow think to hold _Lolita_ up as an >example of an author's successfully representing a view opposite his own. Why not? I find it hard to believe that Nabokov was, in real life, a pedophile (I recall hearing a story about how, one Halloween, a little girl showed up on his doorstep actually _dressed_ as Lolita. He was horrified). The fact is that, while Humbert's actions are shown to lead to rack and ruin in the end (killing of Quilty etc.), Nabokov also had his protagonist wax exceedingly lyrical about how beautiful she was, her hair, skin, eyes, etc, ad nauseum. While he may see to it that justice is done in the end, Nabokov also attempts to understand the character, get inside his head - which is what all good writers should do. >Well here I am just a naive United Statesian thinking pedophilia goes way >past the point of human fallibility. Then you don't think pedophiles are human? What they do is monstrous and certainly unthinkable to any person whose sanity is not suspect. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they are excluded from the human race. But come to think of it, it was a >good example. Toni Morrison shows this woman to be seriously flawed because >she breastfed her son, while Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert just to be >fallible for sexually pursuing a 12 year old girl. I think the authors were >making value judgements, and they're not ones that I choose to agree with. >I don't have to agree with everything an author says, but when her values >seem so very far from mine, her works just become unimportant to me. How does a book or story lose any importance just because you disagree with its values? For example, Barbara Gowdy's brilliant short story, "We So Seldom Look On Love", was a tale told by a female necrophile, who rhapsodises about the joys of having sex with corpses, doesn't change by the end, and goes unpunished. Again, I find it hard to believe that Gowdy really does endorse necrophilia, and I know I don't, yet I thought the story was excellent. The point is, you don't always have to agree with a story's protagonist in order for the tale to work, and what an author makes his/her characters do isn't necessarily what they think is right or wrong. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 21:57:55 -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: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B550EF190FF2CE6005FCDB15" --------------B550EF190FF2CE6005FCDB15 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Part of the problem may be confusing art and propaganda. I don't think that's why I avoid gangster films (I really couldn't take the last "stellar" example I saw, Good Fellas), but it does relate to my reactions to plays I've seen in recent years at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. Director Gordon Davidson has a certain amount of agit-prop in his makeup, selecting some plays at least in part because they make a certain social point. Plays that rise to a more artistic level, however, may make at least some members of the audience rethink their prejudices and priorities; propaganda pieces usually just make viewers defensive, but where do you draw the line? The two most recent plays were at least female-centered though a recent "CounterPunch" op-ed piece strongly questioned their feminism. Both centered on victimage and the most recent focused on pedophilia: Paula Vogel's Pulitzer-Prizewinner, "How I Learned to Drive." I felt unclean both while and after watching the play, because--for all the dodging and weaving in the program book and the after-show talk session--it basically says that pedophiles need love, too, and that some "victims" may gain from it (compared to an unhealthy family situation, not an ideal upbringing--but where is such a situation?). The critic argued that pedophilia is always traumatic, which an 11-year-old in the role would have brought home, whereas Molly Ringwald plays a 35-year-old, looking back on the relationship with a modicum of nostalgia. Since theaters can't afford to completely alienate even subscription audiences, its obvious why they didn't cast an 11-year-old, but my point is that I don't believe Ms.Vogel favors pedophilia, rather she favors seeing individual cases in context over blanket condemnations. I'm not planning to campaign for pedophiles' rights based on this play, but I might be willing (against my gut reaction) to see pedophiles as human beings who do something I see as monstrous, rather than simply stereotyping them as monsters. A much less affecting example is Samuel R. Delany's plea in his memoir, "The Shadow of Light on Water," to see as human beings a class of people we call sadists (it's not clear whether they only act out their desires with other consenting adults). His saidst is minor and shadowy and does not make a big impression, but Delany's plea is of a piece with what I have called his attempt not to genrify people. "Stars in my Pocket Like Grains of Sand" does a much better job of demarginalizing people, to the extent that the Australian critic Russell Blackford acknowledged that the suggestions of bestiality (confined to a mixed-species family in an sf setting) made him start to sympathize with the author, who as far as we know is marginalized only by skin color, sexual preference, and proclivities for writing paraliterature (including scinece fiction, fantasy, and pornography), and paraliterary criticism. Santanico wrote: > At 11:47 AM 2/04/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >Boy, did I ever fail to express my opinion clearly! I do not think that a > >mother who chooses to breastfeed her child for 4 years is seriously flawed. > >My problem was with the book's suggestion that a "prolonged" breastfeeding > >relationship is evidence of a mother's emotional problems. That seems to > >show a very poor understanding of a mother-child relationship. This lack of > >understanding, however, did exemplify a major fault I found with the book > >which was that, though the title was _Song of Solomon_ there was not a > >healthy loving relationship in the whole book. The mother-child > >relationship could have been, but she chose to show the breastfeeding bond > >as a symptom of disease rather than love. > > Then you wouldn't classify breastfeeding a child for _four years_ as > symptomatic of emotional problems? I'm sure she loved the child, no doubt > about that - but _four years_? I'm sorry, but I would classify that as being > symptomatic of _something_ at least slightly awry. > > >I was surprised that you would somehow think to hold _Lolita_ up as an > >example of an author's successfully representing a view opposite his own. > > Why not? I find it hard to believe that Nabokov was, in real life, a > pedophile (I recall hearing a story about how, one Halloween, a little girl > showed up on his doorstep actually _dressed_ as Lolita. He was horrified). > The fact is that, while Humbert's actions are shown to lead to rack and ruin > in the end (killing of Quilty etc.), Nabokov also had his protagonist wax > exceedingly lyrical about how beautiful she was, her hair, skin, eyes, etc, > ad nauseum. While he may see to it that justice is done in the end, Nabokov > also attempts to understand the character, get inside his head - which is > what all good writers should do. > > >Well here I am just a naive United Statesian thinking pedophilia goes way > >past the point of human fallibility. > > Then you don't think pedophiles are human? What they do is monstrous and > certainly unthinkable to any person whose sanity is not suspect. But I > wouldn't go so far as to say they are excluded from the human race. > > But come to think of it, it was a > >good example. Toni Morrison shows this woman to be seriously flawed because > >she breastfed her son, while Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert just to be > >fallible for sexually pursuing a 12 year old girl. I think the authors were > >making value judgements, and they're not ones that I choose to agree with. > >I don't have to agree with everything an author says, but when her values > >seem so very far from mine, her works just become unimportant to me. > > How does a book or story lose any importance just because you disagree with > its values? For example, Barbara Gowdy's brilliant short story, "We So > Seldom Look On Love", was a tale told by a female necrophile, who > rhapsodises about the joys of having sex with corpses, doesn't change by the > end, and goes unpunished. Again, I find it hard to believe that Gowdy really > does endorse necrophilia, and I know I don't, yet I thought the story was > excellent. The point is, you don't always have to agree with a story's > protagonist in order for the tale to work, and what an author makes his/her > characters do isn't necessarily what they think is right or wrong. > > Sant. --------------B550EF190FF2CE6005FCDB15 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Part of the problem may be confusing art and propaganda.  I don't think that's why I avoid gangster films (I really couldn't take the last "stellar" example I saw, Good Fellas), but it does relate to my reactions to plays I've seen in recent years at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles.  Director Gordon Davidson has a certain amount of agit-prop in his makeup, selecting some plays at least in part because they make a certain social point.  Plays that rise to a more artistic level, however, may make at least some members of the audience rethink their prejudices and priorities; propaganda pieces usually just make viewers defensive, but where do you draw the line?

The two most recent plays were at least female-centered though a recent "CounterPunch" op-ed piece strongly questioned their feminism.  Both centered on victimage and the most recent focused on pedophilia: Paula Vogel's Pulitzer-Prizewinner, "How I Learned to Drive."  I felt unclean both while and after watching the play, because--for all the dodging and weaving in the program book and the after-show talk session--it basically says that pedophiles need love, too, and that some "victims" may gain from it (compared to an  unhealthy family situation, not an ideal upbringing--but where is such a situation?).  The critic argued that pedophilia is always traumatic, which an 11-year-old in the role would have brought home, whereas Molly Ringwald plays a  35-year-old, looking back on the relationship with a modicum of nostalgia.  Since theaters can't afford to completely alienate even subscription audiences, its obvious why they didn't cast an 11-year-old, but my point is that I don't believe Ms.Vogel favors pedophilia, rather she favors seeing individual cases in context over blanket condemnations.  I'm not planning to campaign for pedophiles' rights based on this play, but I might be willing (against my gut reaction) to see pedophiles as human beings who do something I see as monstrous, rather than simply stereotyping them as monsters.

A much less affecting example is Samuel R. Delany's plea in his memoir, "The Shadow of Light on Water," to see as human beings a class of people we call sadists (it's not clear whether they only act out their desires with other consenting adults).  His saidst is minor and shadowy and does not make a big impression, but Delany's plea is of a piece with what I have called his attempt not to genrify people.  "Stars in my Pocket Like Grains of Sand" does a much better job of demarginalizing people, to the extent that the Australian critic Russell Blackford acknowledged that the suggestions of bestiality (confined to a mixed-species family in an sf setting) made him start to sympathize with the author, who as far as we know is marginalized only by skin color, sexual preference, and proclivities for writing paraliterature (including scinece fiction, fantasy, and pornography), and paraliterary criticism.
 

Santanico wrote:

At 11:47 AM 2/04/99 -0800, you wrote:

>Boy, did I ever fail to express my opinion clearly!  I do not think that a
>mother who chooses to breastfeed her child for 4 years is seriously flawed.
>My problem was with the book's suggestion that a "prolonged" breastfeeding
>relationship is evidence of a mother's emotional problems.  That seems to
>show a very poor understanding of a mother-child relationship.  This lack of
>understanding, however, did exemplify a major fault I found with the book
>which was that, though the title was _Song of Solomon_ there was not a
>healthy loving relationship in the whole book.  The mother-child
>relationship could have been, but she chose to show the breastfeeding bond
>as a symptom of disease rather than love.

Then you wouldn't classify breastfeeding a child for _four years_ as
symptomatic of emotional problems? I'm sure she loved the child, no doubt
about that - but _four years_? I'm sorry, but I would classify that as being
symptomatic of _something_ at least slightly awry.

>I was surprised that you would somehow think to hold _Lolita_ up as an
>example of an author's successfully representing a view opposite his own.

Why not? I find it hard to believe that Nabokov was, in real life, a
pedophile (I recall hearing a story about how, one Halloween, a little girl
showed up on his doorstep actually _dressed_ as Lolita. He was horrified).
The fact is that, while Humbert's actions are shown to lead to rack and ruin
in the end (killing of Quilty etc.), Nabokov also had his protagonist wax
exceedingly lyrical about how beautiful she was, her hair, skin, eyes, etc,
ad nauseum. While he may see to it that justice is done in the end, Nabokov
also attempts to understand the character, get inside his head - which is
what all good writers should do.

>Well here I am just a naive United Statesian thinking pedophilia goes way
>past the point of human fallibility.

Then you don't think pedophiles are human? What they do is monstrous and
certainly unthinkable to any person whose sanity is not suspect. But I
wouldn't go so far as to say they are excluded from the human race.

But come to think of it, it  was a
>good example.  Toni Morrison shows this woman to be seriously flawed because
>she breastfed her son, while Nabokov showed Humbert Humbert just to be
>fallible for sexually pursuing a 12 year old girl. I think the authors were
>making value judgements, and they're not ones that I choose to agree with.
>I don't have to agree with everything an author says, but when her values
>seem so very far from mine, her works just become unimportant to me.

How does a book or story lose any importance just because you disagree with
its values? For example, Barbara Gowdy's brilliant short story, "We So
Seldom Look On Love", was a tale told by a female necrophile, who
rhapsodises about the joys of having sex with corpses, doesn't change by the
end, and goes unpunished. Again, I find it hard to believe that Gowdy really
does endorse necrophilia, and I know I don't, yet I thought the story was
excellent. The point is, you don't always have to agree with a story's
protagonist in order for the tale to work, and what an author makes his/her
characters do isn't necessarily what they think is right or wrong.

Sant.

--------------B550EF190FF2CE6005FCDB15-- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:57:27 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <199904030512.XAA71612@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:12 PM 4/2/99 -0600, Santanico wrote: > >Then you wouldn't classify breastfeeding a child for _four years_ as >symptomatic of emotional problems? I'm sure she loved the child, no doubt >about that - but _four years_? I'm sorry, but I would classify that as being >symptomatic of _something_ at least slightly awry. Heavens! That I find incredibly horrifying - more than half of this planet's population breastfeed their children fully for 2 years and partially for 4 years - and in some cultures at some times, eg nomadic peoples who are often mobile - the child remains partially breast-fed for up to 6 years. Are you saying that so many women on this planet have some deep-seated emotional problem? Along with the several hundred thousand generations of our ancestors? Or weren't they even *human*??? I would suggest that white Western women are under such incredible pressure to abandon breastfeeding as early as possible, that the few women who can withstand such sexist, and mother-hating, and woman-hating propaganda as Santanico expounds - are possibly the only ones to experience "emotional problems" by being made to constantly feel guilty and ashamed about it. > >>Well here I am just a naive United Statesian thinking pedophilia goes way >>past the point of human fallibility. > >Then you don't think pedophiles are human? What they do is monstrous and >certainly unthinkable to any person whose sanity is not suspect. But I >wouldn't go so far as to say they are excluded from the human race. > Why not? They are committing a Crime against Humanity by attacking children - attacking the young of your own species, is the ultimate in anti-species behaviour - it is symptomatic of a hatred and a wish to symbolically destroy your own species. >From another tangent - if Male-to-Female transexuals can be "excluded" from the male gender, by being defined as 'not-male' after a series of surgical mutilations and maintaining hormone addiction.. then I see no problem in "excluding" those who commit destructive acts on children as being "not-human". Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:17:20 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <3705ADE3.1E58E648@csulb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:57 PM 4/2/99 -0800, Dave Samuelson wrote: >(snip) I'm not >planning to campaign for pedophiles' rights based on this play, but I might >be willing (against my gut reaction) to see pedophiles as human beings who >do something I see as monstrous, rather than simply stereotyping them as >monsters. I suspect that this is just another form of subtle propaganda - by presenting pedophilia as just another form of "alternative sexual preference" - once we can accept that through art or 'literature' - the next logical step is "tolerance" of it. Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 02:12:52 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:57 PM 4/04/99 +1000, you wrote: >Heavens! That I find incredibly horrifying - more than half of this >planet's population breastfeed their children fully for 2 years and >partially for 4 years - and in some cultures at some times, eg nomadic >peoples who are often mobile - the child remains partially breast-fed for >up to 6 years. > >Are you saying that so many women on this planet have some deep-seated >emotional problem? Along with the several hundred thousand generations of >our ancestors? Or weren't they even *human*??? When did I say, or even suggest, _that_? Calm down. I would suggest that white >Western women are under such incredible pressure to abandon breastfeeding >as early as possible, that the few women who can withstand such sexist, and >mother-hating, and woman-hating propaganda as Santanico expounds - are >possibly the only ones to experience "emotional problems" by being made to >constantly feel guilty and ashamed about it. Oh, my God..."woman-hating"? "sexist"? "Mother-hating"? What exactly is so feminist-thinking and courageous about breast-feeding longer than is necessary? I was under the impression that the entire purpose behind weaning is so that the kid can gain some modicum of independence from the mother. Would you say it's healthy for, say, a twelve-year-old to return to the mother's teat? Or are we women just so infallible that it is absolutely unheard of for us to get things wrong re: child-rearing, and to suggest otherwise constitutes "woman-hating"? >Why not? They are committing a Crime against Humanity by attacking children >- attacking the young of your own species, is the ultimate in anti-species >behaviour - it is symptomatic of a hatred and a wish to symbolically >destroy your own species. > >>From another tangent - if Male-to-Female transexuals can be "excluded" from >the male gender, by being defined as 'not-male' after a series of surgical >mutilations and maintaining hormone addiction.. then I see no problem in >"excluding" those who commit destructive acts on children as being >"not-human". Maybe so, but this doesn't exclude you from humanity. Committing an inhuman act does not make a person not human. I'm sure it's easier to dismiss pedophiles, serial killers, et al, as not being human, but I believe that this stems from a simplistic desire to see such people as "monsters", as Dave puts it, whereas having to deal with them as humans is far more problematic and uncomfortable. Let's get one thing straight - _humans_ commit vile acts against one another. The Nazis stand as a prime example of what humanity is capable of. _Humans_ kill, rape, mutilate and violate each other. To dismiss those who do this as "monsters" is to live in denial that actual humans can do this to one another - and to deny this only furthers the problem. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 02:16:54 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:17 PM 4/04/99 +1000, you wrote: >I suspect that this is just another form of subtle propaganda - by >presenting pedophilia as just another form of "alternative sexual >preference" - once we can accept that through art or 'literature' - the >next logical step is "tolerance" of it. You're right. Let's ban any literature dealing with unsavory topics, or hey, just ones we don't like. For that matter, let us dispose of any works by authors whose personal lives were, shall we say, less than pure. For your book-burning consideration, may I recommend the works of Lewis Carroll, Edgar Allen Poe, and Dante. To paraphrase Freud: "Sometimes a story is just a story". Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:40:01 EST Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/99 12:13:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: << is to live in denial that actual humans can do this to one another - and to deny this only furthers the problem. >> Well. You know, I wonder about that. After all, we are all capable of doing math and yet no one is conferred the title of Mathematician until she/he has actually studied math and shown proficiency at it. We recognize that 'being able' to do something and 'doing' it are not quite the same thing. We would never be so foolish as to say we are all mathematicians. This becomes more impressive when you examine work that has been done on brain structure and physiology since the early 70's which clearly shows that the environment...and one's behavior within it...clearly shapes both the macro- and micro-anatomy of the brain. Do we need a word for those who have studied, and practiced, and developed their human potential and a word for those who have not and whose brains on some level will record this? Wouldn't it be interesting to put limits on some occupations...such as the Presidency?..where individuals would have to first show some indication that they have developed their humanity and are not some sort of proto- human just stumbling along? Oh..and I recommend to you research and philosophical thought that wonders if there is more involved in breast feeding than just food, and if removing access to the breast so soon might not actually impair the ability of children to develop some aspects of their ability to form attachments later in life.... Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:57:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:40 AM 3/04/99 EST, you wrote: >Well. You know, I wonder about that. After all, we are all capable of doing >math and yet no one is conferred the title of Mathematician until she/he has >actually studied math and shown proficiency at it. We recognize that 'being >able' to do something and 'doing' it are not quite the same thing. We would >never be so foolish as to say we are all mathematicians. >This becomes more impressive when you examine work that has been done on >brain structure and physiology since the early 70's which clearly shows that >the environment...and one's behavior within it...clearly shapes both the >macro- and micro-anatomy of the brain. >Do we need a word for those who have studied, and practiced, and developed >their human potential and a word for those who have not and whose brains on >some level will record this? Wouldn't it be interesting to put limits on >some occupations...such as the Presidency?..where individuals would have to >first show some indication that they have developed their humanity and are >not some sort of proto- human just stumbling along? So what are you saying? We should take tests to prove that we're _human_ now? There is a huge difference between being a mathematician and being a human being. The difference is, being a mathematician is learned. It is a profession. It is something you become, not something you _are_. Everyone is human. From the moment you are born, you are a human being. You cannot opt out of being human. The sad fact is, human beings are capable of, and often do, commit evil deeds. It's ugly and tragic, but it's true. To claim that everyone who does evil things is not human is to deny that anyone, literally anyone, has the potential for evil within them. It is to deny that you yourself are capable of such acts. >Oh..and I recommend to you research and philosophical thought that wonders if >there is more involved in breast feeding than just food, and if removing >access to the breast so soon might not actually impair the ability of >children to develop some aspects of their ability to form attachments later >in life.... So soon? As in, before the age of _four_? Come on, I doubt that most kids even _want_ to be breast-fed at age four. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 13:07:37 EST Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/99 8:57:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: << It is to deny that you yourself are capable of such acts. >> I am incapable of such acts. And so are most people. It is not true that we are simply born human. As an example: If a child hears no language before the age of ten (yes, Virginia, it happens) then the window of opportunity for the brain to develop language is passed. The child can learn rudimentary language, but will never speak as the rest of us do. Now, I do not necessarily think that language defines our humanity: nor do I think intelligence does so. However...the ability to recognize others, to form attachments, to 'feel' or empathize with others, and to live a full emotional life of fear, compassion, etc....these things are part of our humanity. They also depend on full development of real areas in the brain. The fact that some people can do inhuman things and others can't strongly suggests to me a failure of development, and a serious anatomical and physiological failure. No. I don't think one is human simply by having human form and the right number of chromosomes. I think it is something learned, something that can be named and respected and to which one might devote oneself. If we did not believe this...if we did not think, as a culture, that humanity can be learned...we would not have religion, ethics, morality plays and children's stories that focus on helping children to learn 'right' from 'wrong'. And...how could we possibly know how long children might want the occasional comfort of the breast? Breast feeding is almost a taboo in this country. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 15:23:04 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Peatling & Barnes Subject: Re: Fisherman vs Female Man MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why not discuss _Always Coming Home_? That's "meaty" enough for just about everybody, I think. Has the list already discussed this one? Jane P. -----Original Message----- Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 3:22 PM Subject: [*FSFFU*] Fisherman vs Female Man >like these stories, but stories are difficult to discuss as a whole. Also, >you're comparing a major work by Russ with a minor one of Le Guin's. [snip] >Slow River). So maybe there's hope we can get one of the meatier Le Guin's >later. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:41:13 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Annalise Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <199904031657.KAA68438@piglet.cc.uic.edu> from "Santanico" at Apr 3, 99 10:57:50 am Content-Type: text > >Oh..and I recommend to you research and philosophical thought that wonders if > >there is more involved in breast feeding than just food, and if removing > >access to the breast so soon might not actually impair the ability of > >children to develop some aspects of their ability to form attachments later > >in life.... > > So soon? As in, before the age of _four_? Come on, I doubt that most kids > even _want_ to be breast-fed at age four. But some do want to nurse at age four. At that age it isn't so much about the milk as it is about the closeness and security. There is nothing wrong with nursing a child until the child loses interest. It is just less socially acceptable to offer a four year old a breast for comfort than it is a blanky, thumb, or stuffed toy. Edie -- ----- annalise@ripco.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:38:57 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII One thing that makes me wonder about this particular flame war -- why in the world _everyone_ is supposed to breast-feed up to a certain age only? Why is either doing it up to the age five is "abuse", or weaning way before that age is "alienating"? Don't you think that it might be different for different people and there simply cannot be one and only "right" kind of behavior, prescribed to everyone? I hate to remind you all, but no particular parental action can be "good" by itself, nor be some guarantee of a healthy upbringing. A woman who breastfeeds till her kid is four might do it: a) because it creates some special bond for both of them; b) because she gets some sexual kicks out of it (that _does_ happen); c) because it's a part of her particular cultural tradition so she feels obliged to do it, not feeling much about it one way or another; or d) because it helps her save on groceries. In each of these cases, it's the same kind of breast, the same kind of mouth, and the same kind of action, but the emotional implications and the "meaning" of the act would be different. Just as a kiss can be an act of love just as much as an act of sexual abuse, and there is really little way to find out exactly what babies feel about a particular behavior, I'm afraid all the arguments of this sort are not about human behavior or child's interests as much as they are about political issues. Or to be exact, about one particular issue -- tolerance to another point of view. Why is it both of you seem so threatened by the idea that someone does not share your belief about breastfeeding? Santanico made a point that each woman who breastfeeds "past certain age" is a candidate for a psychiatric evaluation. Julieanne called everyone who is not excited about breastfeeding a four-year-old a "woman-hater". If one is so sure she knows the "right" way to bring up children, why couldn't she do it without making others follow her under the gunpoint? Does it make you feel "less right" as long as there is someone who does it differently? I wish it was so simple -- all women who breastfeed are good mothers, all those who don't are not, or vice versa. Unfortunately, in real life it does not happen. No specific action (or absence of such) would automatically graduate one to being a good parent, it takes a lot more than that. By the way, I'm afraid the same holds for "being human". Remember that scene in the _Handmaid Tale_ when the protagonist watches religious fanatics burn "unholy" books and remembers her own mother-the-radical-feminist and her friends burning pornographic magazines? Well, those two incidents _were_ similar, little as we may like it. Moreover, it is possible that the former was partually responsible for the latter. Because fanatism and intolerance are the same no matter which particular idea it is justified with, and the only thing it can accomplish is make political extremism "for a good cause" more acceptable. So that your trying to exterminate the ideas you don't like today paves the way to those who will want to exterminate your ideas (together with you) tomorrow. Sad as it may be, all people cannot think the same way (even if you consider it the most progressive, logical, and "human" way to think). They never did, they never will. You either accept it, little as you may agree with other views, or you build a gillotine that will eventually cut off your own head. IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 22:01:34 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:07 PM 3/04/99 EST, you wrote: >I am incapable of such acts. And so are most people. Morally, yes. But what I'm trying to say is that the potential lies within us all. You can't tell me that you've never been so angry with someone that you "wanted to kill them". >It is not true that we are simply born human. As an example: If a child >hears no language before the age of ten (yes, Virginia, it happens) then the >window of opportunity for the brain to develop language is passed. The child >can learn rudimentary language, but will never speak as the rest of us do. > >Now, I do not necessarily think that language defines our humanity: nor do I >think intelligence does so. However...the ability to recognize others, to >form attachments, to 'feel' or empathize with others, and to live a full >emotional life of fear, compassion, etc....these things are part of our >humanity. They also depend on full development of real areas in the brain. Then by this logic, you define mentally handicapped or mentally ill people as being "inhuman"? >The fact that some people can do inhuman things and others can't strongly >suggests to me a failure of development, and a serious anatomical and >physiological failure. > >No. I don't think one is human simply by having human form and the right >number of chromosomes. I think it is something learned, something that can >be named and respected and to which one might devote oneself. If we did not >believe this...if we did not think, as a culture, that humanity can be >learned...we would not have religion, ethics, morality plays and children's >stories that focus on helping children to learn 'right' from 'wrong'. There is a difference between "moral" humanity and "literal" humanity. Literal humanity is a clinical definition of what we are as a species, the same as you would call a canine a canine or a feline a feline. Morals are learned. Religion (yes, a very humane institution there) is learned. Bear in mind, also, that "morality" tends to differ according to culture; in certain parts of Africa, female circumcision, an unthinkable practice to our sensibilities, is sacred. Does this make the Africans who practice this "inhuman"? I mean, from what you appear to be saying, anyone who does not adhere to society's rules is not a human being. Therefore, petty thieves are not human. Confidence people are not human. Anyone, in fact, who hurts another person, emotionally or physically, is not human. I'm sorry, it's just too simplistic. If the simple fact were that everyone who commits unlawful or downright barbarous acts were not human, we would have absolutely no use for psychoanalysis. >And...how could we possibly know how long children might want the occasional >comfort of the breast? Breast feeding is almost a taboo in this country. Yes, of course it is. It's all part of that great "All Men Hate Us And Are Out To Get Us" conspiracy. I see women breastfeeding practically every day, and thus far nobody has seen fit to outlaw them doing so. And how could we possibly know? Well, when you were four, did _you_ want to go back to suckling? Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:04:08 EST Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/99 8:06:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: << But what I'm trying to say is that the potential lies within us all. You can't tell me that you've never been so angry with someone that you "wanted to kill them". >> That is exactly correct. I am telling you that, I do get angry. I do want to change things. But, no, Santanico. I do not want to kill anyone. I am reminded of a Muslim woman whose son was killed in one of their conflicts. She said that her son was angry, and when men get angry they kill. Then she said something interesting: "I get angry, too. But it doesn't make me kill." There is a big gulf indeed between those who kill, and those who solve. By the way, in case I haven't mentioned it on this list, I am a little over six feet tall and, yes, I can use a gun. A shotgun, because my eyesight isn't so good. I can, but I don't. >>Then by this logic, you define mentally handicapped or mentally ill people >>as being "inhuman"? Now, Sant. I am talking about ability to form attachments, see others as alive, feel empathy. Find creative solutions to problems. All the mentally handicapped people I know can do that just fine (hence my statement in the last post about intelligence not being essential to humanness) and illness is transitory (one hopes).. << Anyone, in fact, who hurts another person, emotionally or physically, is not human >> Yup. Not yet, anyway. Any more than someone who can't quite get calculus will be awarded a Ph.D. in Mathematics. And as for psychoanalysts (sp?)...what we really need is a people culture, where the development of the embryo, and of children, has real importance. Where the experience of life is as valued as the experience of going to work and making a profit for the company. And as for female 'circumcision'...if you feel this is the activity of healthy, human, lively culture then, hey, go for it. Just remember, they don't use anesthesia. As for me, I think it is inhuman, cruel, unhealthy...and smacks of the old, "We can't interfere with what they do with their women" perspective. >>I see women breastfeeding practically every day, >>and thus far nobody has seen fit to outlaw them doing so. Um. Unless I disrecall, if they breastfeed for longer than you think OK, you want them sent to the loony bin. And I seem to recall that in some places, it IS illegal to breastfeed in public... This is interesting, because, clearly, my point of view is quite new to you...perhaps unbelievably so, and that is what I have always felt SF was for...to help us see, and believe, other perspectives and points of view. Even those as alien to you as my own. Madrone, wishing us all a good Easter, wishing a good Easter to all those lost children in Macedonia... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 09:41:11 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Annalise Subject: OT Breastfeeding (Was Toni Morrison - Lolita) In-Reply-To: <199904040401.WAA35088@piglet.cc.uic.edu> from "Santanico" at Apr 3, 99 10:01:34 pm Content-Type: text >>And...how could we possibly know how long children might want the occasional >>comfort of the breast? Breast feeding is almost a taboo in this country. >Yes, of course it is. It's all part of that great "All Men Hate Us And Are >Out To Get Us" conspiracy. There is not that conspiracy, but for MANY years women were repeatedly told that formula is better for their babies, and that breastfeeding was barbaric. Even with the published change by the Pediatric Association, the medical community, at least in Chicago, isn't as pro-active about supporting breast-feeding as they should be. For example, when I had my daughter at a hsopital that is supposed to be supportive of breast feeding, I had to request to see a lactation consultant, as opposed to seeing one as a matter of course. And if I had my baby on Saturday, I would have been s.o.l. because the consultant doesn't have weekend hours, and policy is a 24-hour stay. My baby also had to stay in the icu for a while after birth. I had to ask for a breast-pump, twice, as opposed to one just being given to me. I also was not informed of the feeding schedule that they have for babies in the icu, so she was given formula when I did not "magically" show up for their scheduled feeding. Bear in mind, I was still a patient at the time, all that was needed was a phone call and I would have fed her myself. And while no one looked at me askance when I stated I wished to breast-feed, I would have thought that they would have assumed that every woman having a baby will breast-feed, and formula feeding is the alternative, rather than the other way around. But it isn't the case. My daughter had to return to the same hospital for a few days, and with the usual package of diapers, baby bath, etc., they gave us a case of formula. We didn't ask for it, they didn't ask if we wanted it, or needed it, they just gave it to us. The same hospital, the same pro-breast-feeding hospital where I had to ASK for the assistance and items to begin breast-feeding my child, GAVE me formula as part of their routine. This was eight months ago. I'm still pissed. Male conspiracy? Unlikely. Formula maker conspiracy? Hmmm.... >I see women breastfeeding practically every day, and thus far nobody has seen >fit to >outlaw them doing so. It must be nice to live where you do. There are PLENTY of places where breast-feeding is still prosecutable as a lewd act. In fact, states such as Illinois, California, Wisconsin, and North Carolina LEGALIZED breast-feeding. That pretty much tells of a climate that viewed breast-feeding as offensive. It is as if a state legislature legalized farting or vomiting in public. (sorry about the analogy, had to think of distasteful bodily functions to make the proper comparison) Women are also frequently asked to leave public places, or told to breast-feed in the bathroom, even if they are being discreet. Who the hell wants to eat in a public toilet? If I won't, why should my baby? >And how could we possibly know? Well, when you were four, did _you_ want to go >back to >suckling? When I was four I sucked my thumb. I was weaned at nine months, when my mother said I lost interest. And I doubt I remembered nursing at all. I don't now. But that has no bearing on how long a child is going to want to nurse. I'm not going to cut my baby off of nursing at nine months just because I did. She is her own person, with her own needs and wants. If a four-year-old still nurses because s/he wants to, what is the big deal? Edie -- ----- annalise@ripco.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 12:27:53 EDT Reply-To: DMadrone@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: OT Breastfeeding (Was Toni Morrison - Lolita) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/99 7:47:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, annalise@RIPCO.COM writes: << Women are also frequently asked to leave public places, or told to breast-feed in the >> We have a situation here where a woman has been called to jury duty and won't be relieved of jury duty just because (!) she is breast feeding and can't do so in public. The courthouse folks have gone so far as to allow they will make 'arrangements' for her. My guess is it will be...the restroom! Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:24:29 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Breastfeeding taboo was RE: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You don't have to become a mother, or even want motherhood for yourself, to defend it for other women - feminists have no problem defending lesbianism, or careerism, or women's participation in militarism, or the sciences, or politics, or participation in woman-only, or androgynous utopias etc - but always stop short of giving any positive defence or support to the women who choose active, positive prolonged motherhood. Feminists speak about the "power" of the mother. The mother is the least powerful of all women, and always has been. Any power the mother had was destroyed centuries ago, and was probably as much a myth as the Virgin Mary - and motherhood was a patriarchal institution for a lot longer than marriage. The mother-child bond, is universally acknowledged as somehow 'powerful' and 'negative' by everyone (except possibly mothers- LOL - but whoever listened to mothers?:) - some mythical "all-powerful" mother - so they venerate it on one level and completely devalue it in reality. Mothers and children have been 'separated' as early as possible for centuries, at younger and younger ages. Women are told every which way to view the foetus as "separate", to view the infant as "separate" and is encouraged to "separate" herself from the child as soon as possible and get back to the "real world". And now women are convinced its in their own interests to accelerate the removal of the mother-child bond, and all the messy biology that goes with it, altogether. And feminists have finished the job, that patriarchy started. Feminists do not defend the mother, or mothering - at best they have ignored mothers, at worst they have added to the coup d'etat. Even in sci-fi/fantasy - many, but not all, feminist writers, present the mothering function, at best - as just a temporary inconvenience, a duty that should be gotten over with as quickly as possible, many even enjoy it, just so long as it uses up as little of a woman's life as possible, so she can get back to the "real action". They decry quite rightly any attempt at enforced mothering under patriarchy - but they also show a mild distaste of those women who do choose mothering as a "career". One notable exception was Jo Clayton's _Diadem from the Stars_ and subsequent books in the series. The female protagonist's pregnancy, birthing, breast-feeding and devoted mothering was an integral part of the plot-twists and character development - and with no lack of space-opera action and adventure. But generally any feminist trying to show a positive view of pregnancy, or lactation, or mothering is instantly, quickly and decisively put-down as "over-romanticising" or "crazy" or a 'hippy' or a 'dupe of patriarchal identification' or even just plain boring. Adrienne Rich's book - _Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution_ was criticised for being too "poetic" when describing the *experience* of motherhood positively, but was praised for her scholarly analysis of the *institution*. The message is loud and clear: Women bonding with children is 'too powerful' and hence dangerous - so it should be discouraged, and de-valued to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of physical health of the infant and no more. Every psycho-analytical theory from Freud onwards, including feminist theory has claimed that mother-child bonding is somehow detrimental to humans. Particularly if prolonged. The feminist theorists however, go on to say that it isn't the mother's fault - its just a by-product of primitive biology and sexism, and technology and more participation in 'real-life action' will get rid of the whole messy business eventually. So we forgive the mother for her sins, whilst still calling motherhood itself a sin, and biological motherhood is the most sinful of all. At best, we support the inclusion of fathers in the parenting role, to try and rid parenthood of its all-powerful bad-mother image. But even men who do take an active participatory role in parenting their children - are often considered "lesser" men, by others. Men who do enjoy and find 'meaning' in their fathering role, rarely 'come out' about it - it's not important to anyone. Lolita is though, probably because more men identify with the protagonist in Lolita, than they could ever identify with the silly earth-fathers doting on their babies. Male mothers aren't considered any more important than female ones - but at least they aren't so 'emotionally sick' as to breastfeed for 4 years. So whilst motherhood beyond "the minimum necessary" is somehow shameful - (even when its presented positively in art or literature it is described as "over-romanticising" and almost completely dismissed), we pride ourselves in our libertarian views that presenting pedophilia, or necrophilia in art or literature is being 'tolerant' and 'open-minded'. If writers can try to get inside the mind of pedophiles, to try and 'understand' them - why are they loathe to 'get inside the mind' of breast-feeding mothers? Previous generations, in the middle-ages and through the nineteenth century saw upper-class women abandoning breastfeeding of their own children, because it was dirty, disgusting - interfered with their *real-life* duties as upper-class "Wives" - so it was left to servant and slave-women to do it, the invisible 'wet-nurses'. In the 20th century, the removal of breast-feeding by the formula-bottle, allowed many more women in all socio-economic classes to abandon such stigmata of lower-class slavery. Despite a push by the medical profession and women's health-workers in recent decades to reverse this process, as well as encourage gentler, more humane childbirth techniques - it has been less than successful - most women still do not breastfeed or if they do - its not for very long. ie. "the minimum necessary". Anything beyond "the minimum necessary" is seen as some sort of aberration on the part of the mother, and obviously damageing to her child. As breast-feeding was abandoned by wealthy women of past centuries because it interfered with their "real" lives of being "wives"..today women abandon it at the earliest opportunity, because it interferes with whatever their "real lives" are - as workers, or wives or whatever - women can do anything and be proud of it, except be mothers. With recent technological advances, we are just beginning to see the beginnings of the removal of pregnancy. Upper-class wealthy women can hire a surrogate womb, just as previous generations hired wet-nurses. Like the wet-nurses, the gestational mother, or surrogate 'womb-for-rent' is the least paid, the least visible, the least valued and is given at best, token admiration for being 'altruistic'. So is the nanny or au-pair, and the day-care creche workers, and the pre-school kindy teachers, who are amongst the lowest paid and lowest-status workers. With recent high-profile trials of murderous and incompetent nannies, we can't even trust our servant classes to be mothers anymore. But not to worry, within 30-50 years, maybe earlier or later, it can be taken over by machinery for all socio-economic classes and that all-powerful, mythical pregnant, child-feeding, child-tending, or child-teaching woman can be completely dispensed with. And good riddance, is heard by all. Sounds very similar to Mary Daly's classic analysis of 'token-torturers' and the long history of women's 'Burning times'. Even Daly in her treatment of Female Genital Mutilation completely missed the fact, that women in the 20th Century modern Western hospitals of 1999, routinely have their genitals mutilated during hospital childbirth. British women have support groups for women, who have suffered major physical and psychological damage as a result of such mutilations, as damaging as rape and often more so - but feminists still don't "see" it happening - because it is happening to mothers. It is no wonder then, that many women having been mutilated in one childbirth - would prefer Caesarian section for the next. It is no wonder that women have deserted motherhood in droves. Who cares? As Daly pointed out - such torture starts in the upper and middle-classes and becomes a fashion and spreads 'downward' over time. The first women to submit to the knives and torture of the man-midwives in the middle-ages, were the royal wives of European nobility. No wonder women welcomed and demanded the introduction of chloroform in the 19th Century. By late 20th Century, we have a situation where women midwives are being charged with child endangerment, or in some places, midwifery is even illegal with heavy criminal penalties attached. But we don't burn them at the Stake anymore. Shulamith Firestone and other feminists proclaim pregnancy and childbirth as barbaric - just as women of the middle-ages thought breastfeeding was, and dump it onto the lower-classes and those of the 'altruistic' servant classes - until such time as technology will free us all from it. As with Daly's analysis about how such mechanisms are enforced - we see the USA as a dominant world cultural force. The "upper-class" of all nations and cultures. The adoption of commercial surrogacy, and its legalisation and promulgation in the USA during the 1980's and 1990's is not universally followed by other countries as yet - but the pressure is building, and will obviously be adopted by the rest of the world sooner or later, as it becomes more successful and cheaper. After thousands of years of enforced motherhood, where women didn't even have the choice of which male sired their children, - I can well understand, women's desire to abandon motherhood and its attendant biology altogether. Pregnant and breast-feeding mothers are a reminder of the cruelty, and the physical and psychological rape heaped on our mothers for generations. We certainly don't want to celebrate it or experience any more of it than is absolutely necessary. Once is enough for any woman. I can empathise and sympathise and even strongly support the view that it is a barbaric process, and recommend having it removed out-of-sight and out-of-mind and most definitely out of art or literature. Feminists often decry the "feminisation of poverty" - and while we wrinkle our noses in disgust, or sigh with stoicism at the hopefully short-lived temporary necessity of the messy business of birthing for ourselves - we hope to "liberate" our lower-class sisters by providing better access to education and technology so they too, can enjoy liberation from that nasty, distasteful mess of mothering and get on with 'real life'. Nonetheless, there will always be some women, and some men too, who enjoy parenting as a big and important part of their lives, and embrace it 'the old-fashioned way' with all its messy biology and bonding - but, the social ostracism for their choice will be the same as now. Quaint old-fashioned anachronisms, idiots and hippies. The 'lunatic fringe'. They certainly won't become the subject of authors or artists trying to "get inside their minds" or "understand" them - it's not titillating or exciting as pedophilia or necrophilia. Lesbian feminists can be proud of their lesbianism under feminism; career-feminists can be proud of their career advances under feminism... women boxers can be proud of their sport under feminism; women soldiers can be proud of their soldiery under feminism..... but mothers, including lesbian mothers, have become more and more ashamed of their pregnancies, their lactating breasts, their enforced dependency on men, and/or control by patriarchal medical, welfare, and educational institutions for support and help. Lesbians, homosexuals, pornographers and pedophiles, serial killers - everyone can all "come out" and "be understood" in art and literature and film - but not mothers - they must stay in the closet, or purdah until we can liberate everyone from the detrimental effects of motherhood. We'd all laugh ourselves silly to see a Mardi Gras parade of pregnant and breastfeeding women. This is not to say there isn't feminist activist mother groups, but they are a minority and almost a "fringe element" of feminism. But I don't see this process as part of the anti-male feminist theory of "men hating women" and trying to kill them all off or reconstruct women into whatever men's current popular sexual fantasy is - I don't think most men hate women, some men obviously do - most men just don't care about women one way or another. Nothing to do with them. Not their problem. Women would probably prefer it had nothing to do with them either. I see it as unfortunately women hating their own womanhood, or one part of the experience of womanhood. For which I am grieved, not angry or paranoid. I just think it is sad. I also believe that women's own 'woman-hatred' of menstruation, pregnancy, birthing and lactation and motherhood is understandable and a logical, rational response. To actually enjoy or give nominal respect to the cruelty, and social ostracism, of motherhood and female biological functions, is insane. To prolong the cruelty beyond the "minimum necessary" is also insane. At best, we just ignore it all as best we can - or sometimes, we 'minimise' it, or 'dismiss' it as unimportant with a little token lip-service and patronising smiles about 'choices' - because its not even important enough, or significant enough within the 'human condition' or human experience to try and "understand", let alone discuss or write about. I can accept that the mother and motherhood, is dead or dying, and its too late to reverse the process - I can even accept that it may be a good thing for women, since we are all agreed that the mother-child bond is obviously detrimental and negative for both women and children, so its probably a good thing that we discourage mothers from bonding with their infants for any longer than the "minimum necessary" so she doesnt 'contaminate' the child any more than the "minimum necessary". Eventually the "minimum necessary" will be nothing at all, it may take a few more decades or even centuries to fully convince the majority of women, but then we can all be happy. ALL women can enjoy the freedom of the "real world" then, where its OK for adult men to have sexual relationships with children- or any other of the myriad immoral, or anti-social not-very-nice behaviours that are part of the 'human condition' or human experience, potentially within us all - or at the least its OK to write about, and try to "understand" men who have sexual relationships with children, or women copulating with corpses, and casually entertain in our minds the possibilities and potentials of such behaviours in ourselves and others - a story is just a story after all....it can even be high art, or literature on text lists for academic study..... .... but in this same "real world" its not OK for women to breastfeed or mother children...let alone write about it, discuss it, or present it in a positive way, or even just try to 'understand' its significance (or lack of), to the 'human condition'. Julieanne jalc@ozemail.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:56:24 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Misha Bernard Subject: Re: definition of "human" WAS: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <199904040401.WAA35088@piglet.cc.uic.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi all, to try and drag this back a little to SF... I think one of the discussions going on here is a definition of "human." Santanico is using "human" or "literal human" to be homo sapiens- the species, while Julieanne (and I myself) us humans more as a category like humane? I understand the not-so-historical dangers of not making everyone human: non-white peoples and women were considered sub"human" (and still are in some places) that allows for sever discriminatory treatment. Santanico's example about the developmentally disadvantaged, etc, shows the dangers of having to qualify as human. However, to drag this back to SF as I said I would: what about aliens? If we would consider aliens in SF as people too, but they are not homo sapiens, then how do we define human? Can aliens act human or humanely, or would they be excluded from consideration (or would we, as being less than whatever kind of alien)? misha On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: [snip] > Then by this logic, you define mentally handicapped or mentally ill people > as being "inhuman"? > [snip] > There is a difference between "moral" humanity and "literal" humanity. > Literal humanity is a clinical definition of what we are as a species, the > same as you would call a canine a canine or a feline a feline. Morals are [snip]> > Sant. > Misha Bernard Cultural Studies PhD student mbernar1@gmu.edu George Mason University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:39:27 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pamela Bedore Subject: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello All, Wow! I just finished reading this very big, very rich novel by Elisabeth Vonarburg. I think it sometimes get translated as *In the Mother's Country* as well as *The Maerlande Chronicles*. Has anyone read this? I'd love to chat about it...the premise is a post-holocaust society in which only 3% of the population is male. The men are subjugated, and the subjugation (and everything else) is questioned/considered by the central character, who is female. There are so many things to discuss... ******spoiler alert*********************** I'm intrigued by the last narrator, who has transcended time. I suppose rereading the novel would clarify this person's identity. Is the voice in the last chapter Linta? An anonymous (incognito) voice of divinity? A metafictional voice/the ultimate storyteller? I like the destabilizing nature of the last chapter, but I'm also frustrated by it...I'd be grateful to anyone who could make it all clear (although the book was great, I'm not sure I want to reread!) pamela bedore department of english simon fraser university ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:58:48 -0500 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: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From another tangent - if Male-to-Female transexuals can be "excluded" from >the male gender, by being defined as 'not-male' after a series of surgical >mutilations and maintaining hormone addiction.. then I see no problem in >"excluding" those who commit destructive acts on children as being >"not-human". > > >Julieanne Well, I've been waiting, but nobody has seen fit to comment on this part....how is it a "mutilation" when a person has elective surgery performed on him-(or her! Women do this to, you know)self which allows him or her to outwardly conform to the way he or she feels on the inside? And why do you claim that this "excludes" MTF's from the male gender? Does it not just as easily "include" them in the female gender? I realize that many "born" women don't think that it does, but the way you phrased it makes me wonder at your rather patronizing assumption that these people are running _from_ something rather than _to_ something. And as for "maintaining hormone addiction," is that what we will call it when a diabetic uses insulin? When a woman who has had a hysterectomy takes estrogen? I am not a transgendered person, but I think that those who are deserve at least the respect of our assuming that they have carefully weighed their alternatives and have decided to make such a momentous change for reasons that have real meaning. It might widen your viewpoint a little if you read some of the books being published by transpeople--_My Gender Workbook_ by Kate Bornstein, or _Read My Lips_ by Riki Wilchins. It doesn't help anyone to make such blanket assumptions without any apparent knowledge of the motivations that might inspire a person to have the kind of "mutilation" to which you refer. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:39:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Janice Bogstad Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, I've read this book, in French and in English. Wrote a part of a dissertation chapter on the first book in the series, too. I'd also love to chat about it.Jan Bogstad bogstajm@uwec.edu At 12:39 PM 4/5/99 -0700, you wrote: >Hello All, > >Wow! I just finished reading this very big, very rich novel by Elisabeth >Vonarburg. I think it sometimes get translated as *In the Mother's >Country* as well as *The Maerlande Chronicles*. > >Has anyone read this? I'd love to chat about it...the premise is a >post-holocaust society in which only 3% of the population is male. The >men are subjugated, and the subjugation (and everything else) is >questioned/considered by the central character, who is female. There are >so many things to discuss... > >******spoiler alert*********************** > >I'm intrigued by the last narrator, who has transcended time. I suppose >rereading the novel would clarify this person's identity. Is the >voice in the last chapter Linta? An anonymous (incognito) voice of >divinity? A metafictional voice/the ultimate storyteller? > >I like the destabilizing nature of the last chapter, but I'm also >frustrated by it...I'd be grateful to anyone who could make it all clear >(although the book was great, I'm not sure I want to reread!) > >pamela bedore >department of english >simon fraser university > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:52:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: Jaran discussion begins Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" OK, it's time to start discussing Kate Elliot's Jaran. Hopefully after the relative lack of enthusiasm to dig into the Le Guin short stories we can get some juicy dialog going about this month's book. Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? I didn't expect this to be much more than a fun escapist romp, the kind of SF book I love to take on vacations, long plane rides, or to the gym to keep my mind off the exercise. It certainly didn't disappoint me in that! In fact I went on to read the next two books in the series and I have one in my gym bag right now. Do you agree that Jaran is tasty mind-candy? If not, why not -- not your favorite flavor? Or perhaps you are not so quick to dismiss this as fluff? If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? Was anyone else reminded of Kirstein's book Outskirter's Secret? If so how would you compare the two nomadic societies? What other similar worlds or societies in other SF books? How do you feel about this being a series? Did you feel abruptly cut off at the end, or was there enough resolution to be satisfied with this as a standalone book? Are you going to or have you already read the follow-on books? I have more comments and questions to follow but this ought to get things started. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:25:28 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: definition of "human" WAS: Toni Morrison - Lolita MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E1112C39B601A3468B5E85EE" --------------E1112C39B601A3468B5E85EE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What about the utopian portion of Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time, where embryos are nurtured outside the womb and men's breasts are altered so they can give milk? Is that a mutilation and a moral outrage? What about Donna Haraway's cyborgs? SF offers many borderline cases that should give pause to anyone insisting on exclusion by rigid definitions. Misha Bernard wrote: > Hi all, to try and drag this back a little to SF... > I think one of the discussions going on here is a definition of > "human." Santanico is using "human" or "literal human" to be homo > sapiens- the species, while Julieanne (and I myself) us humans more as a > category like humane? I understand the not-so-historical dangers of not > making everyone human: non-white peoples and women were considered > sub"human" (and still are in some places) that allows for sever > discriminatory treatment. Santanico's example about the developmentally > disadvantaged, etc, shows the dangers of having to qualify as human. > However, to drag this back to SF as I said I would: what about > aliens? If we would consider aliens in SF as people too, but they are not > homo sapiens, then how do we define human? Can aliens act human or > humanely, or would they be excluded from consideration (or would we, as > being less than whatever kind of alien)? > > misha > > On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: > > [snip] > > Then by this logic, you define mentally handicapped or mentally ill people > > as being "inhuman"? > > > [snip] > > > There is a difference between "moral" humanity and "literal" humanity. > > Literal humanity is a clinical definition of what we are as a species, the > > same as you would call a canine a canine or a feline a feline. Morals are > [snip]> > > Sant. > > > > Misha Bernard Cultural Studies PhD student > mbernar1@gmu.edu George Mason University ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:41:40 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pamela B: Terrific, I just finished it a couple of months ago. I think it is one of the finest feminist SF works I have read AND it is superbly written. Yes, lets! ******spoiler alert*********************** I seem to recall trying to sort this myself, let me drag it out and reread some. LOL, I cannot make it clear, but again I will go back to the text and see what comes back to my mind. I really enjoyed this book, though it took me forever to read it. FYI: I had the good fortune to speak briefly with Vonarburg at the ICFA last month. She said she has a newer book (from a different series) that has been contracted for release/translation in the US. She added that whereas 'Mother Lands' was not a world she would chose to live in, the world she developed for the upcoming book _is_. I cannot wait. donna (just back from a stupendous Minicon weekend! I have re-upped in the legion of ardent Octavia Butler fans. Hot Tip for potential WisCon attendees - watch for and attend the 'Lady Poetesses from Hell' at WisCon in May - terrifically good fun!) donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:53:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: brahms Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran discussion begins In-Reply-To: <19990405230157596.AAA270.287@jennifer.actioneer.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? I'm afraid I can't answer that question, since I kept falling asleep over the book! Elliot's type of fantasy always reminds me of those fat russian novels. Too many complicated names, nicknames, and place names to memorize in order to make any sense of the plot. Sigh ... I guess I'll have to dose myself up with coffee & try again. -Rachel, feeling somewhat embarrassed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:53:59 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:58 PM 5/04/99 -0500, you wrote: It might widen your viewpoint a little if you read some of the >books being published by transpeople--_My Gender Workbook_ by Kate >Bornstein, or _Read My Lips_ by Riki Wilchins. Kate Bornstein! She's wonderful! Anyone here read her co-written novel, "Nearly Roadkill"? I must have re-read that book a million times, and I recently bought "MGW". Unfortunately, I can't find "Gender Outlaw" anywhere, though... Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:12:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: definition of "human" WAS: Toni Morrison - Lolita Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:56 PM 5/04/99 -0400, you wrote: However, to drag this back to SF as I said I would: what about >aliens? If we would consider aliens in SF as people too, but they are not >homo sapiens, then how do we define human? Can aliens act human or >humanely, or would they be excluded from consideration (or would we, as >being less than whatever kind of alien)? I wouldn't define them as "human" in the scientific sense, and nor, I sense, would they. But yes, certainly they could act in a human_e_ fashion, by which I mean in a non-harmful manner towards humans (or any other species of alien, for that matter...). Humaneness and humanity are two entirely different areas; you don't have to do anything to be human, whereas being humane is to, basically, treat others with the same dignity and respect you'd expect for yourself. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:37:36 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran discussion begins MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? Yeah, I liked it. It was somewhat difficult to get into at first, and I cannot figure out exactly why. I kept putting _Jaran_ down in favor of other available fiction, until I finally decided to skim through a few dozen pages. I was drawn in slowly. I don't know if I need a spoiler, but. . . s p o i l e r ! I read _Jaran_ several weeks ago and cannot remember the names of the main characters. Yikes. :( Still, I did not consider it to be mind-candy, although I did feel it was somewhat lengthy and labored in sections. I was not completely convinced regarding the closeness of the relationship between our hero (#@$! what was her name?) and the young Jaran man who becomes her "brother." I found myself becoming annoyed with her because of her protracted grief over his death. This is unusual because I'm kind of a touchy-feely human when it comes to strong emotions. > If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do > you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? I liked the women characters Elliot created, both in the Jaran and in the offworld societies. It wasn't radical, but the strength and social power of the Jaran women was satisfying. I wasn't crazy about the whole "women travel in carts and men ride magnificent steeds," but still, no one gender had all the power. That might be enough to nudge _Jaran_ into a feminist category. I wonder, though, whether our hero would have been as successful in her endeavors had she truly been restricted to women's tasks and means of expression. The fact that she crossed gender lines to achieve her goals, (learning to use a sword, wearing men's clothing, riding horses, discovering what the conquerors were up to) makes it seem that men did have a bit more power than women. > Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? Enough to continue reading the book. I don't remember throwing down the book and shouting "oh, you've got to be kidding! I'm supposed to BELIEVE this stuff?" the way I do when I cannot buy into an idea or fictional culture. It makes it easier to discuss gender issues in fiction if the available sexes have differing, traditional duties. One thing I wondered was if any Jaran men crossed the gender lines to the extent that our hero did (other than her beloved, who accepted the mark of marriage from the hero after he marked her). > How do you feel about this being a series? I didn't know it was a series. I'll have to check out the later books. Maybe then I'll find out about the female members of the "alien" conquerors. I think it stood well enough alone. One thing I found interesting was how the aliens never seemed to learn to notice and interpret human facial gestures. This lack occurs despite the complexity of the alien society. However, (some) humans learn to interpret the conquering aliens' color changes and body language as well as the verbal language. Nice little touch--the dominant culture doesn't learn details about the subcultures, but people in the subculture know much about the dominant one. Overall, the converging story lines were interesting and did not compete for attention. . .I cared about many of the characters and read to discover what happened to them. . .and enfolding description of the conqueror's culture was intriguing. I AM curious to discover what happened with our hero's older brother as he went deeper and deeper into the conqueror's governmental procedures. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 03:50:55 -0500 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: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't believe Rachael was falling asleep over Jaran! I was absolutely possessed with the book for 3-4 days and was even sneaking a few pages at work. However, I too felt a little embarrassed (as Rachael did) but I'm sure for different reasons. I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to read as a teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was disappointed about):) I think the style has clear similarities to the historical romance genre. Perhaps I should clarify I read primarily some relatively hard-core ones by Kathleen Woodiwiss and Rosemary(?) Rogers.I mention the hard-core part because I think it raises one *very important* difference of Jaran and that is that Tess is never in the raped-and-falling-in-love-state that all those "headstrong beauties" are. One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that old trope. And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and believable parts of the culture was the polyamory (sorry, that's the only vocabulary word that popped into my head at 3:31 am. What does that tell you?). The fact that the heroine gets it on with several men and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the tribespeople, seems pretty radical. I was trying to picture that acurately translated into a movie and I just don't think it would happen. That's way too radical for hollywood to do without playing up the jealousy as a means to the climactic "real" love between Tess and Ilya. And that is not what Elliott did. The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). The fact that Tess has sexual relationships with three men, that her closest companion is her "brother" Yuri, and that she is also close to an older man, not to mention that she is unanimously respected as an equal by all the men in her jaran, is pretty cool. And don't forget the women--Sonia is a friend and ally, although Tess's relationships with women don't have much opportunity to mature the same way as those with men. I also liked the way young women started to look to Tess as a model of possibility--that they started considering being riders becasue she succeeded in doing it. If anything, Tess seemed almost too perfect, though I liked that she could be. Everything she did, she did well, from learning languages to dancing. I had not realized there were sequels! I had to strongly curb the impulse to order them from Amazon on the spot. I will definitely read them. But for now, nighty night kids. Susan Jennifer Krauel wrote: > > OK, it's time to start discussing Kate Elliot's Jaran. Hopefully after > the relative lack of enthusiasm to dig into the Le Guin short stories we > can get some juicy dialog going about this month's book. > > Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? > I didn't expect this to be much more than a fun escapist romp, the kind of > SF book I love to take on vacations, long plane rides, or to the gym to > keep my mind off the exercise. It certainly didn't disappoint me in that! > In fact I went on to read the next two books in the series and I have one > in my gym bag right now. > > Do you agree that Jaran is tasty mind-candy? If not, why not -- not your > favorite flavor? Or perhaps you are not so quick to dismiss this as fluff? > If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do > you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? > > Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? > Was anyone else reminded of Kirstein's book Outskirter's Secret? If so how > would you compare the two nomadic societies? What other similar worlds or > societies in other SF books? > > How do you feel about this being a series? Did you feel abruptly cut off > at the end, or was there enough resolution to be satisfied with this as a > standalone book? Are you going to or have you already read the follow-on > books? > > I have more comments and questions to follow but this ought to get things > started. > Jennifer > jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:02:37 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran In-Reply-To: <3709CAEF.3A74@people-link.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:50 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Big Yellow Woman wrote: > >While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, >emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was >such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that >old trope. I agree - when I read Jaran the first time, I remember finding myself giggling constantly at the totally unexpected "different spins" Elliott paints over stereotyped scenes. One was the scene of the men returning from war, the great big heros, rippling muscles, swaggers and swords..all sitting down comfortably at the camp-fire to take out their embroidery and discuss the relative merits of each other's needlework! I still find that image hard to reconcile:)) or even earlier, when Tess first arrives at the Jaran tribe and the women take her along on the walk to the river to bathe and do the 'traditional', women's work of washing. Blah, blah, boring I think while reading..until they pass a group of men returning from the river..and these swaggering macho he-men are reduced to blushing, shy smiles, and lowering their eyes downward at the women's cat-calls and flirting! I empathised with Tess, who was also puzzled by the women's behaviour, and finding it difficult to reconcile in her mind, as well as us readers' minds - having made automatic assumptions about what the 'marriage mark' actually meant in Jaran society. >And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and >believable parts of the culture was the polyamory (sorry, that's the >only vocabulary word that popped into my head at 3:31 am. What does >that tell you?). The fact that the heroine gets it on with several men >and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the tribespeople, >seems pretty radical. Yes:) The concept of marriage and sexual fidelity is very ingrained in us - and Jarans *twist* on that issue turned my head around more than once - the idea of "women have no choice in marriage, but men have no choice in sex" was interesting, and my mind certainly boggled over the implications. And that it was expected by all the tribespeople, as well...as part of the soap-opera story of any community, the age-old giggles and gossip of "who is sleeping with who":))....but nonetheless, the Jaran people do have 'rules' of what was socially acceptable - for example, Tess is told off for publicly and ceremoniously giving a gift to the husband of a powerful woman of another tribe - as such public displays in front of the wife or husband were considered "bad manners". >The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by >limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly >Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful >blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). > The later books, build the story of Vasil and Illya and how their homosexual relationship affects the tribal culture - in later sequels the Jaran tribes have to confront their feelings about homosexuality, as they adapt to the other cultures around them - But I won't add a spoiler, its really quite complicated anyway:) >The fact that Tess has sexual relationships with three men, that her >closest companion is her "brother" Yuri, and that she is also close to >an older man, not to mention that she is unanimously respected as an >equal by all the men in her jaran, is pretty cool. And don't forget the >women--Sonia is a friend and ally, although Tess's relationships with >women don't have much opportunity to mature the same way as those with >men. I also liked the way young women started to look to Tess as a model >of possibility--that they started considering being riders becasue she >succeeded in doing it. The Jaran women do learn to ride as children along with the boys, but women's hunting with bow-and-arrow was carried out close to home, and the women only needed to ride the smaller cart ponies while hunting. This also becomes an issue for the Jaran tribes in later books, because their enemies in the wars use archers...the Jaran men do not excel in archery, because its a "woman's weapon" and so are at a military disadvantage. Hence the tribes leaders are forced to confront their feelings about women going to war...(sorry, about the spoiler, but its only a little one) >Jennifer Krauel wrote: >> Do you agree that Jaran is tasty mind-candy? If not, why not -- not your >> favorite flavor? Or perhaps you are not so quick to dismiss this as fluff? >> If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do >> you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? I enjoyed it as mind-candy but every now and then, there came an unexpected 'fizz' or jolt of having my expectations and assumptions turned upside down. Just when you think you have it all figured out, some Jaran woman or man character made me question my own gender assumptions, sometimes with humour, sometimes with dismay - but thats what feminism is about - questioning assumptions and social 'constructs' of gender roles. >> Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? >> Was anyone else reminded of Kirstein's book Outskirter's Secret? If so how >> would you compare the two nomadic societies? What other similar worlds or >> societies in other SF books? I found similarities with Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Mists of Avalon_ in its soap-opera style, ... and also with Shannah Jay's Quest series of books, where a so-thought medieval world is being observed by an orbiting ship of Terran anthropological researchers. As the story progresses the Terran researchers have to constantly rethink and doublethink their assumptions about the gender relationships, as well as the world's level of technology and its religions. >> How do you feel about this being a series? Did you feel abruptly cut off >> at the end, or was there enough resolution to be satisfied with this as a >> standalone book? Are you going to or have you already read the follow-on >> books? I certainly wasn't satisfied and had to read the rest. My only grudge is the length of all the books, they are over-wordy perhaps - and there were many times I would think, come on, hurry up and get on with it! By the end of the fourth book, I was feeling satisfied as nearly all the loose plot threads and snarls were coming together and being resolved...only to find, in the last pages, a completely unexpected, but plausible set of *twists* turning upside down all my assumptions and expectations of the "power" relationships with regard to the alien Chappalli yet again! LOL I don't know whether I want to kiss or kick Kate Elliott:)) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:05:17 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: Breastfeeding taboo was RE: Toni Morrison - Lolita Yowiee! Julieanne, what a post. You speak so well for the benefits of breastfeeding and support of the choice to mother. Just in case anyone wonders more about the advantages of breastfeeding the older child I couldn't resist directing you to some sites: http://www.prairienet.org/community/health/laleche/detwean.html http://www.parentsplace.com/expert/lactation/extended/qa/0,3459,6366,00.html http://www.nurturing.ca/ebmarianne.htm http://www.nurturing.ca/ebindex.htm Being a labor and delivery nurse, I take the benefits of breastfeeding very seriously and hate to have uninformed people think incest or emotional deficit is involved in this best possible way of nurturing. Which leads me to my next idea. While I thoroughly enjoyed your post, I take very strong exception to your statement that feminism does not support women who choose to be mothers or breastfeeding mothers or stay at home mothers. I came to feminism as a by product of learning about birth when I was pregnant with my son. Not being entirely comfortable with the idea of homebirth, I did go to the hospital for the last 20 minutes of my labor with him. After that, homebirth with my daughter was the only thing I would consider. I breastfed each baby for 2.5 years, and La Leche League was my first "feminist" organization. Because of them I went on to become a labor and delivery nurse so I could help other women find joy and power in birthing. Of course feminists support mothers. The essence of feminism is allowing women to make our own choices in how to live our lives. We don't want motherhood to be the only option for women, just as we don't want nursing, or teaching or astrophysics or boxing to be the only options. We want women to feel safe and supported at home, in the workplace, running for office, making health decisions, getting educations, developing ourselves in whatever ways we choose. Not all feminists are interested in the topic of motherhood. No one feminist speaks for us all. Here are some sites about feminism and breastfeeding: http://www.bestfed.com/breastfeeding/empower.htm http://parentingweb.com/lounge/WABA_bf_fem.htm http://www.efn.org/~djz/birth/add695/brstfeedfem.html http://www.geocities.com/~zeldaanslinger/ringlist.htm You might find it unbelievable that feminist support motherhood, I found it strange to find Christians who call themselves feminists. We're everywhere, just as we should be. Maybe we won't make it to Whileaway, but with enough of us working together, raising our sons and daughters as whole people, maybe we won't have to go that far. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:31:23 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: Breastfeeding taboo was RE: Toni Morrison - Lolita In-Reply-To: <002301be801d$5b75b440$464b2599@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:05 AM 4/6/99 -0700, Joyce Jones wrote: >Which leads me to my next idea. While I thoroughly enjoyed your post, I >take very strong exception to your statement that feminism does not support >women who choose to be mothers or breastfeeding mothers or stay at home >mothers. I came to feminism as a by product of learning about birth when I >was pregnant with my son. (snip)> >Of course feminists support mothers. The essence of feminism is allowing >women to make our own choices in how to live our lives. (snip) >You might find it unbelievable that feminist support motherhood, I found it >strange to find Christians who call themselves feminists.(snip) Thank you and *hugs* Joyce:) Its the sort of thing I needed to hear! I was grieving because I wasn't *hearing* it, or not enough of it anyway... Julieanne:) PS: I fed my children for years too - and came to be active in feminism via the home-birth and women's health movement. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:11:08 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/6/99 7:51:28 AM, Susan wrote: <> I thought homosexuality was acknowledged, not hinted at, but only among men: the fierce Aranabekh and the beautiful Vasil for instance. I'd have to re-read to be sure, but thought there had been something between Vasil and Ilya at one point. I didn't catch any love relationships among the women. I liked the love parts. In fact, the differing kinds of love Tess felt for the several men in her life was a strength, IMO. I did wish for some more definite and well-drawn relationship with her brother. That was never clear to me beyond her angst about being in his shadow. The beautiful but wicked Vera didn't quite work for me. She was predictable and shallow -- maybe that's what Elliot meant her to be. Not entirely satisfactory for me, though. Some of the time I felt manipulated by the role reversals. Ditto for the "power" of the Chapalii -- I felt as if I were filling in gaps, assuming a story for them that I had not been told by Elliot. Mind-candy it may be, but I read it straight through as far as possible (I seem to do that with Kate Elliot's work), intrigued and pleasured. I thought I had read this book before, but within 10 pages realized I hadn't. (Is there another title close to this?) Besides -- it was fun! best, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:45:23 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: busy busy busy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit sorry to scattershot and run, but: JARAN read fine like a stand alone. I very much liked it on first reading lo these several years ago, did not have time to reread for discussion. Nomadic society also evoked AMMONITE for me in some ways, IIRC. NEARLY ROADKILL was fascinating! thought I'd share this in light of the recent discussion: The Ultimate Guide to Pregnancy for Lesbians Tips and Techniques from Conception to Birth How to Stay Sane and Care For Yourself by Rachel Pepper CLEIS PRESS AVAILABLE: MAY 15, 1999 "Thank Goddess for Rachel Pepper! The Ultimate Guide to Pregnancy for Lesbians is chock full of essential information, resources and supportive advice from mothers who have gone before. You could scour bookstores, libraries and the internet for months and never find the kind of logistical and emotional support this book provides. I love it!" -- Ariel Gore, author of The Hip Mama Survival Guide Written with humor and insight by a new mom who herself rode the conception roller coaster, The Ultimate Guide to Pregnancy for Lesbians will reassure you every step of the way^Ëfrom your first ovulation kit right up to the first weeks after your baby¹s birth! Whether you are single or coupled, lesbian or bisexual (or even heterosexual), if you want to get pregnant without a male partner, The Ultimate Guide to Pregnancy for Lesbians will show you how! Offers detailed how-to information: charting your body¹s own natural fertility signs selecting a sperm bank or donor inseminating to maximize your chances of pregnancy protecting your legal rights as a lesbian family preparing to be a single mama labor, birth and welcoming your new baby plus support and suggestions for partners and co-parents! Rachel Pepper lives in San Francisco with her daughter Frances. She writes for Curve and other magazines. Available at your favorite neighborhood bookstore and from Cleis Press! May $14.95, Trade paper ISBN: 1-57344-080-9 200 pp., 5.5 x 8.5 Bibliography, Resource Guide, Index Lesbian Studies/Parenting Cover art available http://www.cleispress.com Author Publicity: Contact Don Weise, Cleis Press (415)-575-4700) dwcleis@aol.com DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOOK TRADE BY PUBLISHERS GROUP WEST Pax, Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:30:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: breastfeeding taboo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This morning's newsbit on NPR: Two women are suing Walmart, alleging that while breastfeeding "in a lawful and discreet" manner [in two different stores] they were approached by Walmart employees and told to either breastfeed in the restroom or leave the store. Charming as it is to think that there isn't a breastfeeding taboo in the US, I don't think we've made it there yet. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:01:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sophia Hegner Subject: Re: Where does Feminist sf Begin? In-Reply-To: <3e2155e9.3700cd39@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:10 AM 3/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >Since we're talking about more modern writers, what about Angela Carter? > >Tiger M I really liked _The Bloody Chamber_ when I read it. Great language. I see Carter as a maximalist, and I tend to prefer minimalism. Reading her work is like indulging in decadent food. I read _Heros and Villians_ I THINK it was called, fairly recently, but I didn't care for it. Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:12:04 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Laurel A. Lamme" Subject: Re: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Wow! I just finished reading this very big, very rich novel by Elisabeth >Vonarburg. I think it sometimes get translated as *In the Mother's >Country* as well as *The Maerlande Chronicles*. > >Has anyone read this? I'd love to chat about it... I read this book as part of a course on Language and Gender. I agree that it is a wonderful book with enough to discuss for months. >I'm intrigued by the last narrator, who has transcended time. I suppose >rereading the novel would clarify this person's identity. Is the >voice in the last chapter Linta? An anonymous (incognito) voice of >divinity? A metafictional voice/the ultimate storyteller? > >I like the destabilizing nature of the last chapter, but I'm also >frustrated by it...I'd be grateful to anyone who could make it all clear >(although the book was great, I'm not sure I want to reread!) > >pamela bedore >department of english >simon fraser university > ************Spoiler Alert******************* I would not like to claim to make the book "all clear," but it was my impression that the narrator of the last chapter was Kelys, now in the shape of a male, and still looking after the "childreen of Garde," some of which she had actually sired. Laurel Lamme lalamme@ufl.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:36:05 -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: Vonarburg's Maerlande Chronicles In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990405153936.018fb560@uwec.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I also am writing a portion of my dissertation on both The Silent City and In the Mothers' Land. I'd like some input on my ideas and criticisms. Lorie Sauble-Otto, ABD Graduate Associate in Teaching The University of Arizona Dept. of French & Italian PO Box 210067 Tucson, AZ 85721-0067 Phone (520)621-7349 Fax (520)626-8022 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:02:34 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Would someone please post the titles of the Jaran sequels and their order? Thanks. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:21:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: "human" -or- "halfway human" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm just quickly reading the posts discussing the definition of "human", touching on everything from pedophilia to gender definition to breast feeding. This reminds me strongly of some of the discussion we had here last May about the book _Halfway Human_ by Carolyn Ives Gilman. This story involves a neuter "gender" as well as a pedophile (no breast feeding as I recall) and addresses the question of what exactly is "human". Among other questions. I just checked the main web site to make sure the archive for that discussion is there, and it seems unfortunately to be unavailable. Anyway, it was a very interesting read and if you're interested in these questions you will probably enjoy it if you haven't ready it yet. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:56:19 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: BDG: Jaran Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii They go: An Earthly Crown | These two are part one and part two of His Conquering Sword | one book, and there's no interval between them The Law of Becoming They also tie into an out-of-print trilogy published by Alis Rasmussen (KE is a pen-name, as I understand it): _A Passage of Stars_, _Revolution's Shore_, and _The Price of Ransom_. These are earlier books, and are shorter and somewhat less complex, but I really liked them. (In fact, I read them first, was outraged that she'd never written anything more, and years later found the Jaran books. I read the back of one at a stop light driving home, and almost forgot to look up when the light changed.) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:38:34 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Shannah Jay's Quest series of books, >where a so-thought medieval world is being observed by an orbiting ship of >Terran anthropological researchers. As the story progresses the Terran >researchers have to constantly rethink and doublethink their assumptions >about the gender relationships, as well as the world's level of technology >and its religions. I've never come across these and would appreciate more details (search on amazon.com proved fruitless) Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:17:27 EDT Reply-To: Anabahebic@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: J Brown Subject: Jaran books MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jaren Sequels An Earthly Crown The Sword of Heaven: Book 1 His Conquering Sword The Sword of Heaven: Book 2 Book 1 and Book 2 are actually one book. An Earthly Crown pretty much stops mid thought and picks directly up with His Conquering Sword. Unlike many sequels there is very little migration from the concepts drawn in the first book. If you are planning on reading the sequels save yourself a trip, both books are needed to come to a stopping point in the story. From the ending of Book 2, there is a great chance that the Jaran tales will continue. JB ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:41:19 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: BDG: Jaran discussion begins MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just finished rereading. I'd read JARAN and its sequels when they first came out, enjoyed them a lot, although I seem to recall that, as with many series, the further along you get, the less personal the stories become. Since I prefer the personal stories, I almost always prefer the beginnings of series. Once the stories broadens to a large cast and more interest in "the big picture", I lose interest. Anyway, back to JARAN. First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. Given that, yes, JARAN is good entertainment. I was interested in Tess and her adventures, I was interested in the jaran culture, and I particularly liked the different-but-not-reversed gender roles. (Reminded me in many ways of things I've read about some of the Plains Indians.) Gender roles are played around with a little bit; enough to be interesting, but I wouldn't say that there's anything profound there. Is it feminist? I guess that depends on your definition. I haven't been here (on the list) all that long, but I don't think one definition has been agreed upon. To me, it is by virtue of telling the story from the woman's point of view, having strong women characters, and playing around with gender roles. OTOH, you could argue that much of this book shows Tess more or less becoming "one of the boys" ... Much as I like JARAN, I'm not sure it succeeds that well as a stand-alone. The abrupt ending does leave a certain unfinished feeling. Also, did it seem to anyone else that Tess never really dealt with the issue of "treachery"? Outside events take over, and she just kind of goes along with them. I was glad of it, emotionally I wanted to to stay with Ilya and the jaran, but ... Well, but. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:24:13 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bonnie Gray Subject: Re: off-topic breastfeeding taboo In-Reply-To: <9904061730.AA04057@shoebox-greetings.pa.dec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This is one of my pet peeves, so even though I am in the middle of cramming for my doctoral qualifying exam, I have to comment. Maybe the suggestion should be that women will agree to stop showing their breasts doing what THEY ARE MEANT TO DO once patriarchial society stops using them to sell everything from beer to sportscars. And maybe little kids could use a dose of reality before they grow up and subscribe to Playboy (boys) or feel inadequate compared to silicone-filled models in Cosmopolitan (girls). Goodness knows that many of their fathers could use a dose of reality. Bonnie On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > This morning's newsbit on NPR: > > Two women are suing Walmart, alleging that while breastfeeding "in a lawful > and discreet" manner [in two different stores] they were approached by Walmart > employees and told to either breastfeed in the restroom or leave the store. > > Charming as it is to think that there isn't a breastfeeding taboo in the US, I > don't think we've made it there yet. > > jessie > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:19:47 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kimberley Snow Subject: Cherryh's "Cassandra" In-Reply-To: <199904061912.PAA27288@smtp.ufl.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Does anyone have a reaction to/thoughts on this story? At the last minute I have to teach it tomorrow. Kimberley ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:28:38 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: _Quest_ was re: BDG: Jaran In-Reply-To: <01fe01be8070$73368d40$5f2e70c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:38 PM 4/6/99 +0100, Lesley Hall wrote: >>Shannah Jay's Quest series of books, >>where a so-thought medieval world is being observed by an orbiting ship of >>Terran anthropological researchers. As the story progresses the Terran >>researchers have to constantly rethink and doublethink their assumptions >>about the gender relationships, as well as the world's level of technology >>and its religions. > >I've never come across these and would appreciate more details (search on >amazon.com proved fruitless) Shannah Jay is an Australian woman writer, of sci-fi/fantasy as well as children's books under different pen-names. At the Ozlit Writers database site: http://dargo.vicnet.net.au/ozlit/writers.cfm?id=621 ...lists a short bio of the author and a list of her books at the bottom of the page. Clicking on the link for the book _Quest_ will take you to a synopsis along with the three sequels. I suspect it may not have been published in the USA, but perhaps it has been published in the UK, as many of her books have been. The book is available from most Australian On-line bookshops for mail-order, the largest on-line bookshop which has it in stock is at: http://www.bookworm.com.au Hope this helps Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:42:51 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Kate Wilhelm: nonfiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii There's her afterword to her short story "The Funeral" in AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS and her contribution to the joint mail interview with Damon Knight by Charles Platt in DREAM MAKERS (orginal edition)...and I'm not sure I remember much else, other than quotation from her in A POCKETFUL OF STARS (edited by Knight)...must go looking... _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:30:39 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: BDG: JARAN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've read JARAN several times, and I always come away with the same sense; not only is this book a lot of fun, it is also one of the most cleverly subtle works of feminism I've read. Elliott is breaking new ground here. She challenges many preconceptions of the male literary canon, but does it subtely and has fun being subversive. JARAN approaches feminism from a different direction than many of the other ground-breakers. I don't think it's an accident that some of the most brilliant ground-breakers in feminist literature have been those that dared to consider nontraditional relationships, including female utopias. Although I've questioned some of the premises of female utopias, that by no means diminishes my admiration for the many great works that have explored its ramifications. Similarly, FSF has been a leader in exploring alternate views of sexuality, either in terms of redefining the sexes altogether, as with Le Guin's LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, or in looking at gay and lesbian relationships. Another one of Le Guin's short works comes to mind, though I can't remember the title. "Mountain Ways"? I believe it won the Tiptree a few years ago. It is set on a world where marriages are among four people, two men and two women. The story concerns one group that wants to break tradition by having three women and one man (Well, okay, it's sort of a guy fantasy. But Le Guin raises provocative questions about human sexuality and marriage). Nor surprisingly, one area has lagged behind the others in feminist science fiction--the feminist portrayal of positive heterosexual relationships. Part of the problem, of course, is that the subject matter edges back into the area of conventional works that have long defined "literary" quality, ie, a canon that concentrates of male works, or works that favor a male world view. When we strip away the symptoms of sexism and get down to causes, it is rooted in sexuality, that is, in portrayals of sex and love, how we feel about them, and how they reflect in our lives. Elliott approaches the subject from many directions, but two major features stand out for me: 1) She challenges the passive/active roles often assigned in human heterosexuality. In JARAN, the men wait while the women make the approach. There are no caricatures here, none of the sexism that showed up in earlier eras, when strong women were portrayed as incompetent until the men finally rose up and took over, "making things right" again. In contrast, Elliott shows a believable culture in which the implicit assumption is, "Yes, it is natural for women to take an active role and for men not to." 2) Her women are strong without adopting male characteristics. What is traditionally considered the male and female spheres of life in our culture are pretty much the same in the JARAN culture. But the emphasis has been switched. The female sphere is valued more. It is the woman's life that defines the identity of the people. In light of number 1 above, number 2 is even more startling. Elliott challenges the fundamental basis of "truisms" about human heterosexuality. Her men may go out riding and waring, but when they come home they are in a position of sexual passivity. They sit around the fire embroidering their clothes while the women decide whether or not they want to make advances and who they will choose. JARAN audaciously thumbs its nose at the idea that male aggression will, by nature, make men the sexual aggressors. I like the fun Elliott has with it, too. It's a hoot the way the male lead goes through so much maneuvering and plotting trying to get the female lead to marry him. After reading so much SF where the woman throws herself at the all-powerful male, who could take or leave her, JARAN is like a great breath of fresh air. Here the Ghenghis Khan character goes through all these traditionally "female" gyrations trying to get his love interest to commit to marriage. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:40:42 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Danielle Moulton Subject: BDG: Jaran In-Reply-To: <199904070503.AAA81108@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I read Jaran several months ago now and I remember being very disappointed in it. A lot of the ideas and gender roles within the culture where interesting and new but to me the underlying structure was still simply a "mills and boon." (and yes, I did read quite a few of them as a youngster!) To me, Tess WAS basically a different spin on one of the classic romantic "headstrong beauties" Big Yellow Woman mentions. The fact that Ms Elliot has put in a mixed bag of gender roles doesn't change the main facts: The man she falls for- Ilya - was still the strong silent, emotionally scarred, most powerful person in her sphere. Ms Elliot tried to make out that women had plenty of power but as Lindy has pointed out already, the fact was that the only sphere Tess could acheive what she wanted to was with the men. I also thought it was a complete "cop-out" about Tess and Ilya's power relationship, that it's ok that Ilya is the complete leader in this ENTIRE story because we know that away from this setting, Tess is actually a VIP. (It reminded me so much of the the whole secret superhero teenage fantasy- To me it's basically a sop to feminist ideals and lets the whole romance be conducted with Tess on a lower level than Ilya) Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was supposed to be. I don't think i have to mention the treachery at the end where after the usual headstrong -i can do anything i like struggle on her part- she finally acquieses to his demands. I guess i had quite an extreme reaction against this book, because I had expected a lot. When i thought of feminist romance i was thinking equal power relationships, great communication and a story of circumstances which might make things difficult for them. IMO, the basic story of this book was classic romance trash. But having got that off my chest, i did enjoy it for what it was, and look forward to people's comments on some of the interesting twists it did bring up! Normally lurking, Danielle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:50:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: BDG Jaran It would be too strong to say I hated this book, so I'll just say that I disliked it quite a bit. Susan asks if "feminists have a problem with love stories." I can speak only for myself in saying that Yes, I have quite a problem with the typical romance novel, which this is. This is my synopsis of every romance novel ever written: The man is brooding and powerful. The woman is beautiful and headstrong. They distrust each other, they clash, they show grudging respect for each other's power, they compete, one bests the other then it's the other way around. At last he comes close, closer, his hot breath on her creamy white neck etc, etc. I know there are intelligent people that like this kind of story, I just don't know why. Mind candy? Certainly but, while I have nothing against good candy, to me romance novels are like the old Halloween stuff that's been sitting around for months and you dip into it because your sweet tooth is acting up. Not good, not satisfying, but at least it's sugar. Some of my objections to the book: Tess did inspire some other girls to want to ride with the jaran, but where were the men wanting to live with the women, the real seat of power? Why were men so reluctant to take on the woman's expertise with archery when it was so obviously suited for war, yet practicing with a man's sword was thrilling to women. (Well, that does echo a little of Tepper in Gate To Women's Country. The way to keep men from ruining society is to keep their combat hand to hand.) How is it that even in that society where the women are the ones in charge, still if a youngster wants to make an upward move, she wants to do men things? Elliot gives the women the nominal power but the men the respect. The clincher for me was when Tess was forced to ride in the carts with the women. She found this so upsetting she preferred to walk instead. Not much respect for women's ways going on there. While I did very much like the idea that women had a great deal of sexual freedom and could feel secure from rape and sexual harassment, that was kind of countered by the fact that men made the marriages and the women couldn't refuse except by incurring the scorn of the community. Sure if an unacceptable man marked a woman her brothers could avenge her; but she could do nothing for herself. And it was stated that a man might mark an "uppity" woman just to bring her under his control. No feminism going on there. The villianness of the piece, Vera, was the type of completely one dimensional, beautiful, jealous, vindictive bitch who could have been written easily by the most misogynist male you can imagine. When "they" say hell hath no furry like a woman scorned, this is the women referred to. I did like Elliott's description of the woman's society and would liked to have heard more about it. But since this was not, in my estimation, a feminist book at all, only enough was thrown in to pretend there might be feminism involved. No unmarried woman ever gets pregnant because they take an herb. I guess Elliott considered that bit of information to be an abundant discussion of pregnancy and childbirth because, while Tess rode with the jaran for 6 months, she never once seemed to get her period. Contraception must be easier on that world. Shortly after finishing Jaran, I read this review on H-Net. I excerpt a little here; for the whole review go to http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2118920639535. Theda Perdue. Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700-1835. Indians of the Southeast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Reviewed by Andrew K. Frank, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published by H-SHEAR (February, 1999) . As Perdue demonstrates, the world of Cherokee men and the world of Cherokee women, although interconnected in many ways, remained separate entities throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It was primarily through the female domain and gender norms that cultural persistence prevailed. . The Cherokees never adopted American "civilization"; they merely adapted it to fit their needs and their preconceived ideas about gender. In traditional Cherokee society, portrayed by Perdue as that which existed around 1700, men and women lived as completely separate people. Women farmed and controlled the domestic space, while men hunted and served as warriors. This squared with the Cherokee cosmology which had men and women balancing each other as complementary entities. Men and women came together to fulfill economic, political, and biological necessities, but their lives remained rather secretive from one another. Rigid prohibitions marked which arenas belonged to men and which ones belonged to women; those who deviated from these gender norms were viewed with hostility and suspicion. Even when in the same room, they tended to maintain social distance. Whether in the household, religion, or work, women and men occupied different spaces. Cherokee women, in this gendered world, wielded most forms of power and authority. This resulted from the fact that Cherokees determined kin bonds through matrilineal clans and resided in households formed by extended matrilineages. Husbands, who needed to be of different clans than their wives, lived as outsiders in their wives' households and among their wives' kin. Because authority within traditional Cherokee society was organized locally, clans, and therefore women, had access to tremendous power. Women owned the farmlands, dictated when clans would retaliate in blood vengeance, participated in local councils, determined the fates of war captives, and enjoyed sexual freedom and autonomy. In this matrilineal and matrifocal society, the power afforded to the harvesters of corn can not be understated. Copyright © 1999, H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission questions, please contact hbooks@h-net.msu.edu. So there are good books written about this kind of matrilineal society. I just don't consider Jaran to be one of them. Folding my hands in the bored reader who wants now to read a book showing true respect for women gesture, I'll close with apologies to those who found this book worth reading. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:00:03 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: No Subject MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Was thinking about the notion that JARAN is "mind-candy." What do we mean by that? Someone mentioned that such a phrase seems to indicate that the book is of less "value" or is to be taken less seriously than other works. I don't think that applies to JARAN. It takes just as much skill, talent and thought to work out the world of this novel as for any other-world novel. I bought JARAN's world, although I was left with questions about it. (On to the subsequent books looking for answers!) I mentioned in an earlier post that I felt manipulated by some of the role reversals. Someone else said they were amused by the scene where the women are washing clothes, then the men come and the women tease them. That scene, for instance, felt strained and awkward to me, is one where I felt Elliott was manipulating expectations. The more I think about the book the more I like it. And I liked it to begin with. It pleased me that Tess found herself attracted to men other than Ilya. And her choices seemed consistent with her personality. I liked the fact Elliott didn't explain (compare, contrast, discuss) the fact that the women were in charge of important elements of their society. Curious though, about the orphan -- Vladi. Curious about the way the women treated him. Now, he was a screw-up, to be sure, but the onus seemed to be that he had no family. But he did -- he was Ilya's ward. Puzzled by this. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:20:06 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: "mind candy" vs. "stealth feminism" (was BDG JARAN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I am cursing at my inability to get and read the current book (mumble mutter too manhy papers too little time), but was struck by the issue that came up of the term 'mind candy,' and the sort of hidden assumptions of that term. (I have been thinking about the term 'mind candy' because I got a message from a former student of mine that a reader at the Big Academic SF journal dismissed her essay because, more or less, said reader hadn't read Nicola Griffith's novel she was discussing but dismissed it as "lesbian mind candy'--for those not into the dreary part of academia, if you submit an essay to an academic journal, reader are those people who read/review/evaluate it for acceptance or not; sometimes one reader is all it takes to wipe out your chances. And since I remember all the wonderful comments about Griffith's work on this list compared to the idiot reader who felt qualified to dismiss a work without even reading it--not unusual in the traditional philosophy of literary studies, the story seemed especially maddening.) A couple of years ago I did a presentation on Lois McMaster Bujold's work--novels not taken seriously by academics, I would argue, because they aren't 'difficult' enough. When I was talking to Bujold after the presentation (she sat in on the panel), I told her I was thinking of coining the term "stealth feminism" for what she was doing--that is, burying what I consider can be classified as amazingly radical feminist ideas in fairly accessible narratives (compared to say, Russ' THE FEMALE MAN which I also adore!), mostly about a male protagonist, that will be bought/read by many more people than OVERT feminist works and might just sneak a few ideas past them while they are being 'entertained' by the other aspects of the stories. (She sort of giggled, and from what she said at the panel, i think that's exactly what she's doing--and may be getting more open about it with her greater success recently....) Sounds from what a few people say that Elliot's JARAN might come under the stealth feminism category.......I'm assuming the analogy 'mind candy' was coined to refer to stories people consider fun (i.e. tasty) but empty of intellect (calories?). As with all literature, one person's mind candy might, of course, be a radical empowering feminist experience for another person....... but I am still intrigued by writers who blend feminist ideas with more mainstream narratives as well as those who challenge readers with the mixture of feminist ideas and experimental narratives. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:41:08 -0500 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: Jaran/mind candy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Anyway, back to JARAN. First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" >offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but >to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is >somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes >good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. Well, here's an alternative way of thinking about "mind candy" then: to me, candy books are the ones that just carry me along via their plot and my interest in the characters. I don't find myself thinking about what deeper symbolism there might be, or what the author might "really mean" by very much, and I don't usually find allusions to past literature or an author's attempt to comment, via the new book, on one or more older ones (as in Angela Carter's _Heroes and Villains_ being an alternate telling of Plato's Republic). Sometimes I don't even think that the author is trying to say anything "deep" about our current world. But: there is not only nothing derisive in my voice when I call a book "mind candy," there is in fact a tone of respect and refreshing relief. I LOVE these books. I would place in this category all of the Honor Harrington books, almost all of Elizabeth Moon, Mercedes Lackey, Anne McCaffrey, and the list could go on and on and on. These writers are expert at telling me a story and making me care about their characters. But usually, there isn't anything beyond or beneath those elements, and to me that makes these books "candy:" fun, filling, satisfying, perhaps a slightly guilty pleasure for a grad student in literature . . . but I couldn't live without them. BTW, I haven't read Jaran and have no opinion on whether or not it fits into this category. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:41:07 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Kate Wilhelm: nonfiction In-Reply-To: <19990407004251.15023.rocketmail@web110.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >From: Todd Mason > >There's her afterword to her short story "The Funeral" in AGAIN, >DANGEROUS VISIONS and her contribution to the joint mail interview with >Damon Knight by Charles Platt in DREAM MAKERS (orginal edition)...and >I'm not sure I remember much else, other than quotation from her in A >POCKETFUL OF STARS (edited by Knight)...must go looking... >From the Locus mag page, for stuff from 1984-1997: WILHELM, KATE; [i.e., Katie Gertrude Meredeth Wilhelm Knight] (1928- ) (books) The Faces in the Wall, (ar) MosCon X Program Book, ed. Jon Gustafson, Moscow SF Conv., Inc., 1988 Foreword, (fw) The Best of Pulphouse: The Hardback Magazine, ed. Kristine Kathryn Rusch, St. Martin's, 1991 Introduction, (in) Late Knight Edition, NESFA, 1985 Points of Departure, Bantam Spectra, 1990 athena@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2464 ------------------------------------- * You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:43:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran/mind candy - Honor Harrington Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:41 AM 7/04/99 -0500, you wrote: > I would place >in this category all of the Honor Harrington books, Just on a tangent: Am I the only person in the world who just can't get into this series? I mean, no offense to anyone who is, but it's just so...technobabbly. Or at least the one I'm attempting to read at the moment, "On Basilisk Station" (the first one in the series, and the only one I've ever read) is. I mean, how many pages are devoted to nothing but tech, or characters talking and thinking in technical terms? I realise it's purely personal - a lot of people like technical SF, I don't - but still, I can't help but feel that perhaps I'm missing something here. And Honor herself is a bit irritatingly She-Can-Do-No-Wrong-ish for my tastes. Oh, and I agree with the mind candy thing. Sometimes all you need to do is relax with a good, relatively brainless bit of entertainment. You shouldn't have to rationalise it or make excuses: occasionally a good fun, silly read is a nice break from all those Serious Works Of Literature. Same applies to movies. I love a well-thought-out, intellectual, serious piece of artistic cinema as much as your next art-movie snob, but damn it! One of my favorite flicks is "Highlander", for pete's sake! Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:43:11 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@sff.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Big Yellow Woman > One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I > had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love > stories? I love 'em. :-) > Now, of course we have a problem with the > victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love > a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not > rewite that genre? I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is rarely if ever found in romances these days. > Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I > happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. It cetainly doesn't embarrass me. I think it's great. After all, many of Ursula Le Guin's works are science fiction romances (eg, "Forgiveness Day"). > The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by > limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly > Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful > blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). It's a lot more than hinted at in the later books. Read =His Conquering Sword.= (The title has (or could have) more than one meaning!) It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Ilya is pretty thoroughly bisexual. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:29:24 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: BDG: Jaran Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Several people have commented that Tess could only get the power she wanted by being "one of the boys", but it seemed to me that this was partly because *Tess* bought into the idea that that was the real power. She is not really a part of their culture; she thinks the "male" things are more important. In a later book, there's a big event planned, and at the last minute Bakhtiian has to stay home with a sick child (a twist in and of itself) and Tess says: Won't people be offended that you're not going? and Bakhtiian says: My grandmother [the head of the family] will go. And Tess is jolted by it; she's forgotten that his grandmother *really* has at least as much prestige as he does. This is one of the classic styles of SF: put an outsider into an alien culture, and observe it through their eyes. What Tess thinks and does isn't a reflection of the priorities of the jaran. And I had a great time with this book as a love story. Yes, it partook of many of the typical conventions of the classical romance, but in a way that I thought was very true to the obstinate, frustrated, stubborn, and occasionally stupid ways in which almost everyone I know--gay, straight, monogamous, "open relationship", uncommitted, faithfully married, bitterly celibate--goes about the difficult process of courtship. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:53:44 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: "mind candy" vs. "stealth feminism" (was BDG JARAN) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >but I am still intrigued by writers who blend feminist ideas with more >mainstream narratives as well as those who challenge readers with the >mixture of feminist ideas and experimental narratives. > 'An attempt to combine 'normal' and 'abnormal' elements in one life can be as transgressive as a complete dedication to rebellion.' Pat Califia, Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism, 1997 Something which also applies to narratives? Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:18:22 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: BDG -- off shoot question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am curious if anyone who read "Kate" has read Alis' works under her own name, and if so, what the reaction to those was. I confess I was never intrigued by any of the earlier works, but am very much a fan of JARAN. Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:50:08 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran/mind candy - Honor Harrington MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 11:43:35 -0500 on Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Santanico wrote: >Am I the only person in the world who just can't get into this >series? I mean, no offense to anyone who is, but it's just so... >technobabbly. Though I haven't read any of these books myself, I was surprised to learn recently that my boss is David Weber's cousin. He has given her complimentary copies of many (maybe all) of his books, but she confessed that she has never gotten beyond a couple of chapters into any of them! She said that all the techie details turned her off. Of course, she's not any kind of science fiction fan. (Maybe early exposure to Weber has something to do with that?) I was thinking I might borrow one of the books from her and see for myself. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:12:45 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan wrote: << I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to read as a teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was disappointed about):) One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that old trope. >> The genre has been and is being rewritten already! Romance today is often VERY feminist. Those please-rape-me-again romances are not representative of the genre today. Of course they still pop up, but they are not the norm. You're more likely to find a heroine who easily matches Tess in terms of strength and independence. In fact, JARAN is one of the books on my list when people ask for suggestions for sf/f w/romance. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:52:56 EDT Reply-To: Zozie@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran/mind candy - Honor Harrington MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/99 9:21:35 PM, Janice wrote: <> I'm an avowed Honor Harrington geek. I read the SECOND book (The Honor of the Queen) first -- it is less technical than On Basilisk Station. I devoured it, then started to read them in sequence. And I ain't a techie fan at all, in fact, am very bored with the high-tech sci fi in general. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:27:37 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I hope Sharon Shinn's books are on that list of yours as well! I've absolutely LOVED those books! :) -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeri Wright [mailto:destrier@RICHMOND.INFI.NET] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:13 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran > > > Susan wrote: > > << I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it > reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to > read as a > teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was > disappointed about):) > > One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the > absolute relish I > had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love > stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the > victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you > give love > a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not > rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I > happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. > > While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, > emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was > such a strong and uncompromised character added a different > spin to that > old trope. >> > > The genre has been and is being rewritten already! Romance today is > often VERY feminist. Those please-rape-me-again romances are not > representative of the genre today. Of course they still pop up, but > they are not the norm. You're more likely to find a heroine > who easily > matches Tess in terms of strength and independence. > > In fact, JARAN is one of the books on my list when people ask for > suggestions for sf/f w/romance. > > > -- > Jeri Wright > destrier@richmond.infi.net > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:52:12 -0500 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: BDG: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Danielle wrote > I also thought it was a complete "cop-out" about Tess and Ilya's power > relationship, that it's ok that Ilya is the complete leader in this ENTIRE > story because we know that away from this setting, Tess is actually a VIP. > (It reminded me so much of the the whole secret superhero teenage fantasy- > To me it's basically a sop to feminist ideals and lets the whole romance be > conducted with Tess on a lower level than Ilya) But I think part of the point was that to the Jaran tess was *not* a VIP and for the first time she was able to gain respect for who she was and what she was capable of, not simply because of her relationship to her brother. I didn't see Tess on a lower level at all. The point someone else made about her being an outsider is important because she has to do some learning about what her level of power s a woman really is and she makes mistakes (and the reader makes mistakes) because she expects gender behavior based on earth standards. > > Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in > it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop > escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers > while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating > his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was > supposed to be. > I said that there was no rape scene, and there wasn't. However, that scene was actually the only one that really didn't work for me on any level. I didn't buy that Ilya would consider that or that it would really be a deterrent to the attackers anyway. It was interesting though, that Ilya feels very guilty about the whole thing, that even the suggestion of a man raping a woman was so unthinkable that it disturbed him that he even considerd it as an act. For someone who obviously equated most everything in life with conquest, the fact that rape is never an option seems pretty unusual. What did others think of that scene? > I don't think i have to mention the treachery at the end where after the > usual headstrong -i can do anything i like struggle on her part- she > finally acquieses to his demands. Was that just "aquiesence"? That's definitely the model. But I think the fact that Ilya realizes he cannot force her to do anything after she rejects him over the coerced marriage is sort of a turning point--though you're right that she never hears him express that maturity. > > I guess i had quite an extreme reaction against this book, because I had > expected a lot. When i thought of feminist romance i was thinking equal > power relationships, great communication and a story of circumstances which > might make things difficult for them. IMO, the basic story of this book was > classic romance trash. That's the question about rewriting romance (and definitely about writing erotica, IMO)-- how do you make equality interesting when tension is so much a part of what we find interesting and exciting about falling in love? Thanks for playing, Susan > > But having got that off my chest, i did enjoy it for what it was, and look > forward to people's comments on some of the interesting twists it did bring > up! > > Normally lurking, > Danielle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:18:05 EDT Reply-To: Quiltrek@aol.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Barbera Radford Subject: Re: Honor Harrington: Method MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/99 12:51:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, trekkie@NLC.NET.AU writes: << Am I the only person in the world who just can't get into this series? I mean, no offense to anyone who is, but it's just so...technobabbly. >> Like Phoebe, I've become an Honor Harrington fan, and screeched at the end of In Enemy Hands (how COULD Weber leave us like that???). It was hard going at first, however, because it's difficult to know how much attention to pay to all that ship-and-weapon adoration. But, the series is worth "learning how to read". I've read that whole series now (including the short story collection only out in hardback!!) and skim the technobabble just paying enough attention to know when to be more attentive. HH is obviously based on Horatio Hornblower in tone, so she often comes across as "she-can-do-no-wrong" (as you said Sant), but I find her seriously flawed (in a comic book kind of way). Not that the author acknowledges that Yes, brain candy, but yummy nonetheless. Barbera ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:36:44 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: BDG -- off shoot question In-Reply-To: <370AA44E.13B3@ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Maryelizabeth, Do you mean that Kate Elliot is a pen name? Who is Alis? Tell us more! At 12:18 AM 04/07/99 +0000, Maryelizabeth wrote: >Am curious if anyone who read "Kate" has read Alis' works under her own >name, and if so, what the reaction to those was. I confess I was never >intrigued by any of the earlier works, but am very much a fan of JARAN. > >Maryelizabeth ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:37:58 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lenina Monroe Subject: Re: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: Candioglos, Sandy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Jaran >I hope Sharon Shinn's books are on that list of yours as well! I've >absolutely LOVED those books! :) > > -Sandy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeri Wright [mailto:destrier@RICHMOND.INFI.NET] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:13 PM >> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran >> >> >> Susan wrote: >> >> << I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it >> reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to >> read as a >> teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was >> disappointed about):) >> >> One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the >> absolute relish I >> had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love >> stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the >> victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you >> give love >> a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not >> rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I >> happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. >> >> While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, >> emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was >> such a strong and uncompromised character added a different >> spin to that >> old trope. >> >> >> The genre has been and is being rewritten already! Romance today is >> often VERY feminist. Those please-rape-me-again romances are not >> representative of the genre today. Of course they still pop up, but >> they are not the norm. You're more likely to find a heroine >> who easily >> matches Tess in terms of strength and independence. >> >> In fact, JARAN is one of the books on my list when people ask for >> suggestions for sf/f w/romance. >> >> >> -- >> Jeri Wright >> destrier@richmond.infi.net >> ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:57:05 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: BDG 'Elliot'/Rasmussen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I may interrupt.... a web site (her own) on Kate Elliot/Alis Rasmussen. This is the bio page that gives info on both of them ;) The second site/page is a bibliography of all of her books. http://www.sff.net/people/Kate.Elliott/bio.htm http://www.sff.net/people/Kate.Elliott/biblio.htm FYI, both Alis and Kate will be at Wiscon this year. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Krauel To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG -- off shoot question Maryelizabeth, Do you mean that Kate Elliot is a pen name? Who is Alis? Tell us more! At 12:18 AM 04/07/99 +0000, Maryelizabeth wrote: >Am curious if anyone who read "Kate" has read Alis' works under her own >name, and if so, what the reaction to those was. I confess I was never >intrigued by any of the earlier works, but am very much a fan of JARAN. > >Maryelizabeth ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:29:01 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: BDG: other Elliot/Jaran links Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks for the links to the Elliot/Rassmussen web site, Donna. Here are a few more I found: - "An Eye for Detail: An Interview with Kate Elliott". - Miningco.com interview with Elliot by C. Corey Fisk. In another column Fisk recommends Jaran as a SF cross-genre suggestion for those who like fantasy. - "Looking for Science Fiction in All the Wrong Places?" by Emily Alward. Discusses the "Futuristic Romance" sub-genre. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:44:56 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Kate Wilhelm: nonfiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks! The Boskone momento BETTER THAN ONE (NESFA Press, of course) might have some material as well. Also, the i/v in DREAM MAKERS was a telephone dual session with Knight by Platt. Also an intro to LISTEN, LISTEN, perhaps... --- jenn mottram wrote: > >There's her afterword to her short story "The > Funeral" in AGAIN, > >DANGEROUS VISIONS and her contribution to the joint > mail interview with > >Damon Knight by Charles Platt in DREAM MAKERS > (orginal edition)...and > >I'm not sure I remember much else, other than > quotation from her in A > >POCKETFUL OF STARS (edited by Knight)...must go > looking... > > From the Locus mag page, for stuff from 1984-1997: > > WILHELM, KATE; [i.e., Katie Gertrude Meredeth > Wilhelm Knight] (1928- ) > (books) > The Faces in the Wall, (ar) > MosCon X Program Book, ed. Jon Gustafson, > Moscow SF Conv., Inc., > 1988 > Foreword, (fw) > The Best of Pulphouse: The Hardback > Magazine, ed. Kristine > Kathryn Rusch, St. Martin's, 1991 > Introduction, (in) > Late Knight Edition, NESFA, 1985 > Points of Departure, Bantam Spectra, 1990 > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:10:11 -0500 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: Jaran MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sandy wrote: > > I hope Sharon Shinn's books are on that list of yours as well! I've > absolutely LOVED those books! :) Do you mean she writes sci-fi/romance? Susan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:20:47 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran In-Reply-To: <370BFDBC.76B0@people-link.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:52 PM 4/7/99 -0500, Big Yellow Woman wrote: >Danielle wrote >> >> Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in >> it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop >> escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers >> while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating >> his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was >> supposed to be. >> > >I said that there was no rape scene, and there wasn't. However, that >scene was actually the only one that really didn't work for me on any >level. I didn't buy that Ilya would consider that or that it would >really be a deterrent to the attackers anyway. Yes - that scene didn't work for me, as I couldn't buy it as being a deterrent or delaying tactic for the attackers, they definitely had the military advantage and everybody knew it, but - I assumed it was just a device for Elliott to add some tension/conflict to the characters development. I remember laughing at one point, because Tess almost has to "teach" Illya as a choreographer or stage-director might, how to go about raping a woman - which is also a subtle point, for although Tess's Earth culture background was egalitarian, non-violent and sexually free, Tess still knew more about rape, than the Jaran people did. It was interesting >though, that Ilya feels very guilty about the whole thing, that even the >suggestion of a man raping a woman was so unthinkable that it disturbed >him that he even considerd it as an act. For someone who obviously >equated most everything in life with conquest, the fact that rape is >never an option seems pretty unusual. What did others think of that >scene? > Under Jaran law, the penalty for rape was death, pure and simple. No ifs, buts or maybes - similarly the birds being sacred - killing a bird, was death too - (which was never really explained to my satisfaction in any of the books?). One of the things that struck me, was that while the Jaran were quite an aggressive people, - their violence and aggression within their culture was limited to same-gender...women vs women, or men vs men could be as nasty and competitive as anything, but no inter-sexual violence or aggression was ever tolerated even amongst children and siblings. The primacy of the brother-sister bond is unusual too, as it was often seen as being a "higher" love, than that between husband and wife, or even for parents. A girl who had no brother was pitied. A woman who lost her brother in war, was expected to grieve more for a lost brother, than for a lost husband. Discipline of people and children too, was limited to same-gender, if a man misbehaved it was up to men to deal with the offender, and similarly for women..the problem with Vera's behaviour was seen by the men as a "woman's problem" for the women leaders to sort out. >Was that just "aquiesence"? That's definitely the model. But I think the >fact that Ilya realizes he cannot force her to do anything after she >rejects him over the coerced marriage is sort of a turning point--though >you're right that she never hears him express that maturity. > I saw that as Tess knowing that she could have walked away and returned to her own world anytime if she really wanted to - and his feelings, and behaviour (or anybody else's for that matter) were not as important as what she felt, and what she wanted to do - weighing up the pros and cons, she decided that in her situation the pros outweighed the cons. In other words, she knew he was behaving like a stupid prat, but accepted that as part of his personal make-up, taking the good along with the bad. I personally wouldn't have made her choice - but I didn't see it as a stereotyped female "acquiescence" to male force. But then also, I didn't really like, or identify with Tess or Illya very much, if I'd been Tess I would have disappeared back to Earth, or at least the city of Jeds with a modern bathroom as soon as possible! LOL...Someone mentioned that in all the months that Tess was travelling with the Jaran riders, she didnt have a period - I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the first book, but I do recall that Earth women used implants which suppressed menstruation and fertility for several years. It becomes an issue in later books. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:18:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:43 PM 7/04/99 -0400, you wrote: >> Now, of course we have a problem with the >> victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love >> a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not >> rewite that genre? > >I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is >rarely if ever found in romances these days. Much as I'd like to believe that, only a short while ago I fell victim to Nancy Kilpatrick's absolutely revolting "Child of the Night" (published in early '98, I believe). In which a French vampire named Andre (no seal jokes) kidnaps some woman whose name I don't recall, keeps her locked in a little cell of a room, beats the holy hell out of her if she ever says anything without his permission, tells her frankly that she has no rights and is just a piece of human chattel, and screws her whenever he feels like it. The other vampires, including a friendly one named Gerlinde, just tell the human chick to take it, and maybe he'll fall in love with her! Oh, what a prize, indeed! But it's all right! We find out that Andre once had a wife and child many years ago, whom he lost tragically (probably killed them, I shouldn't doubt), and that's why he's so tormented and tortured and driven to belt the crap out of defenseless women. Well, quite. Then the human chick falls pregnant. She gives birth. He steals the child and boots her out of the house, erasing her memory. Are you feeling warm and fuzzy inside yet? At this stage, would it really surprise you to learn that in the incredibly cliched and stupid ending, all is resolved when Andre realises he loves his little whipping girl - er, I mean, human lover - after all, makes her a vampire, and the two of them live Happily Ever After with the dhampire kid? No, me neither. Let's just hope that the kid never asks "How did you and Daddy meet?" someday. And would it disgust you to learn that this book is only part one of a trilogy? Yes, me too. Good answer. You get a cookie. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:27:24 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran/mind candy - Honor Harrington In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Like Phoebe, I'm a avowed fan, but I see the merits of Santanico's comments about the technoinfodump getting in the way of enjoying the series. David hasn't managed to entirely get over the impulse to give us whacking huge chunks of technology and tactics, and there are many Honorphiles out there who just *thrive* on the infodumps (most of them have Y-chromosomes :)). I tend to focus more on the characterizations and politics and less on the techie toys that go *boom*, and I was able to find stuff in _On Basilisk Station_ amidst the immersion course into the Royal Manticoran Navy that kept me going. And unlike Classic Star Trek's Starfleet, the RMN and most of its opponents are refreshingly open to women functioning in all available capacities; I don't see any of the women characters suffering from Janice Lester's chip on her shoulder about not getting to command or even going into ST:Voyager's Janeway "captain as mother" mode. If you start with OBS, which is my preferred tool for hooking newbies, I always recommend trying to see if you can get through the initial 100 pages or so. Phoebe's suggestion about starting with HotQ first has some merit if you find the techie stuff offputting, but there is stuff in OBS that helps you understand where Honor is coming from in the second book. HotQ has much more explicit gender-related discussions. If anyone had told me ten years ago that I would be a big space opera fan, I would have laughed, but the Honor books found me at a time where I wanted and needed to see women warriors that weren't solely in the bronze bra mode. Of course, I'm looking forward to Esther Friesner's third Chicks in Chainmail anthology, and figure it'll be out around the time of Wiscon. 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: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:27:36 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: BDG: Jaran/mind candy - Honor Harrington Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:52 PM 7/04/99 EDT, you wrote: >I'm an avowed Honor Harrington geek. I read the SECOND book (The Honor of >the Queen) first -- it is less technical than On Basilisk Station. It is? Hmmm...Well, I might give it a try, then. A lot of series do tend to get better after the first novel. Sant.