From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sat May 22 19:47:52 1999 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:43:21 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9904E" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:55:37 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ruth t Subject: Re: Recent reading - April Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Mike wrote: >_Speaking dreams_ on the other is a well-written, but inwardly-focused and >very static book. The (admittedly very well-drawn) universe is little more >than a frame into which the somewhat sado-masochistic affair between the >slave and her mistress is fitted. Of course the affair was between lesbians which made it really annoying for you. You seem to be afraid of women displaying their sexuality. For years men have forceed women to act like good little girls without a thought of sex in their heads and now that their displaying an interest in it men suddenly get upset. I don't know how you can say your a feminist and not accept that women have a right to express their sexuality, lesbian or straight, as, when and how they please. What sort of feminist books do you read that leaves out these things? >The interaction between these two characters, I found, slowed the >action to a snail's pace at times. The book struck me as a >Harlequin romance transposed to a sci-fi/fantasy setting and, just >as in Harlequins, the action proceeded by poorly-defined fits and >starts against the tortured, steamy love affair between the main >characters. This doesn't mean that it was a "bad" book or that >nobody else would enjoy it - it simply means that the book wasn't >to *my* taste. By saying its not worth reading and linking it to Harlequin romance, which by the way can often be very good reading, youre putting women against the book even if you do add that last sentence to try and cover it up. Anybody whos read your comments will automaticaly look for the bad parts and not take into account the good parts. Feminist fiction is more than just adventures stories. It has important lessons for us specially when it deals with issues which affect women in their working and home lives or when it deals with issues like gay rights which the patriarchy has suppressed. Ruth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:14:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Santanico Subject: Re: Recent reading - April Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:55 PM 29/04/99 PDT, you wrote: >Mike wrote: > >>_Speaking dreams_ on the other is a well-written, but inwardly-focused and >>very static book. The (admittedly very well-drawn) universe is little more >>than a frame into which the somewhat sado-masochistic affair between the >>slave and her mistress is fitted. > >Of course the affair was between lesbians which made it really annoying for >you. You seem to be afraid of women displaying their sexuality. For years >men have forceed women to act like good little girls without a thought of >sex in their heads and now that their displaying an interest in it men >suddenly get upset. Hey, cool down, Ruth. He didn't say that he hated the fact that the affair was between lesbians; he just stated that the universe in which the novel was set seemed designed only to accommodate their relationship. I haven't read this particular novel, but I can say that this type of thing annoys me too (when the universe apparently revolves only around two characters, and is there for no other reason). And besides, some people just don't like to read about sex in books, gay, straight or otherwise. I myself happen to dislike slash or porno fanfic. You can't force a person to dig what you dig if they don't dig it. Dig? ;) >I don't know how you can say your a feminist and not accept that women have >a right to express their sexuality, lesbian or straight, as, when and how >they please. What sort of feminist books do you read that leaves out these >things? Well, I would say you can write a feminist novel that doesn't necessarily deal with female sexuality (I count the Honor Harrington novel I read, "On Basilisk Station", as feminist; I haven't read any others in the series). I personally think that all a novel really needs to qualify as feminist is a strong, sharply-drawn heroine or heroines. >By saying its not worth reading and linking it to Harlequin romance, which >by the way can often be very good reading, youre putting women against the >book even if you do add that last sentence to try and cover it up. Anybody >whos read your comments will automaticaly look for the bad parts and not >take into account the good parts. Not necessarily. In fact, if anything else, I'd say that that sort of unfavorable review will encourage women to go out and buy the novel, if only to see what all the fuss was about; I think most people are able to make up their own minds about whether or not they like the book, regardless of a reviewer. And it _is_ just his opinion; no need to get steamed about it. >Feminist fiction is more than just adventures stories. It has important >lessons for us specially when it deals with issues which affect women in >their working and home lives or when it deals with issues like gay rights >which the patriarchy has suppressed. Hey, c'mon, Ruth, maybe he just didn't like the book? Not every opinion a man holds for or against a feminist novel is influenced by gender politics. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:43:25 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lassnig Subject: OT: religious communities in femsf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was wondering whether any of you out there could help me with a question pertaining to feminist utopian literature (although, strictly speaking, it's OT)? I've been looking for 19th and 20th century novels by women that portray a utopian vision with religious communities led by strong, charismatic, male or female figures (such as Butler's Parable books). Could anybody help me here, and suggest some authors (especially on the 19th century)? Many thanks, Ines Lassnig ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:58:03 -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: OT: religious communities in femsf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Get yourself a copy of _Utopian and Science Fiction by Women: Worlds of Difference_ edited by Jane Donawerth and Carol Kolmerten. The authors discuss women's utopian novels from the 17th century to the present. Good stuff, and quite a bit from the 19th cent. Sheryl WSU -----Original Message----- From: Lassnig To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 5:43 AM Subject: [*FSFFU*] OT: religious communities in femsf >I was wondering whether any of you out there could help me with a question >pertaining to feminist utopian literature (although, strictly speaking, it's >OT)? I've been looking for 19th and 20th century novels by women that >portray a utopian vision with religious communities led by strong, >charismatic, male or female figures (such as Butler's Parable books). Could >anybody help me here, and suggest some authors (especially on the 19th >century)? > >Many thanks, Ines Lassnig ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:49:34 -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: OT: religious communities in femsf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Depends on what you mean by "religion" (I haven't read the parable books, yet, so I can't go by your example)....I'm not sure if Sharon Shinn's books qualify as Utopian (the first one might), but they're definitely about a religion lead by a charismatic figure... -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Lassnig [mailto:ilassnig@EDU.UNI-KLU.AC.AT] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 3:43 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] OT: religious communities in femsf > > > I was wondering whether any of you out there could help me > with a question > pertaining to feminist utopian literature (although, strictly > speaking, it's > OT)? I've been looking for 19th and 20th century novels by women that > portray a utopian vision with religious communities led by strong, > charismatic, male or female figures (such as Butler's Parable > books). Could > anybody help me here, and suggest some authors (especially on the 19th > century)? > > Many thanks, Ines Lassnig > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 15:20:02 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joanna Goltzman Bruscell Subject: Plot vs Character MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: If I had to make a stark choice between "plot" and "character" I'd go for "plot" everytime; ************************************ Speaking of choosing plot over character development--hasn't this been a debate in science fiction over the years? Can anyone on the list give me any info on critics who talk about science fiction as plot driven and of characters as functioning as the means by which ideas are presented, rather than as human beings? Thanks. Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:02:49 -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: Recent reading - April In-Reply-To: <199904300714.CAA89412@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Santanico, I wanted to thank you for your response to this post. I was really taken aback at the venom in Ruth's words. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including men, and Ruth's response seemed very extreme to me. Ruth, your tone of anger and accusation is what bothered me, since I think you're entitled to *your* opinion as well. I'm really not interested in seeing this list erupt into major flame wars. When the moderator of the list created another, "on-topic" list, I figured this was the opportunity for this list to develop in the direction is had been heading anyway. I often find our "OT" discussions very interesting and informative. I want no part, however, in a list where the messages are hostile and negative. I hope everyone who is still invested in this list can keep the tone respectful. Just my two cents. Sophia At 12:14 AM 4/30/99 , you wrote: >At 11:55 PM 29/04/99 PDT, you wrote: >>Mike wrote: >> >>>_Speaking dreams_ on the other is a well-written, but inwardly-focused and >>>very static book. The (admittedly very well-drawn) universe is little more >>>than a frame into which the somewhat sado-masochistic affair between the >>>slave and her mistress is fitted. >> >>Of course the affair was between lesbians which made it really annoying for >>you. You seem to be afraid of women displaying their sexuality. For years >>men have forceed women to act like good little girls without a thought of >>sex in their heads and now that their displaying an interest in it men >>suddenly get upset. > >Hey, cool down, Ruth. He didn't say that he hated the fact that the affair >was between lesbians; he just stated that the universe in which the novel >was set seemed designed only to accommodate their relationship. I haven't >read this particular novel, but I can say that this type of thing annoys me >too (when the universe apparently revolves only around two characters, and >is there for no other reason). > >And besides, some people just don't like to read about sex in books, gay, >straight or otherwise. I myself happen to dislike slash or porno fanfic. You >can't force a person to dig what you dig if they don't dig it. Dig? ;) > >>I don't know how you can say your a feminist and not accept that women have >>a right to express their sexuality, lesbian or straight, as, when and how >>they please. What sort of feminist books do you read that leaves out these >>things? > >Well, I would say you can write a feminist novel that doesn't necessarily >deal with female sexuality (I count the Honor Harrington novel I read, "On >Basilisk Station", as feminist; I haven't read any others in the series). I >personally think that all a novel really needs to qualify as feminist is a >strong, sharply-drawn heroine or heroines. > >>By saying its not worth reading and linking it to Harlequin romance, which >>by the way can often be very good reading, youre putting women against the >>book even if you do add that last sentence to try and cover it up. Anybody >>whos read your comments will automaticaly look for the bad parts and not >>take into account the good parts. > >Not necessarily. In fact, if anything else, I'd say that that sort of >unfavorable review will encourage women to go out and buy the novel, if only >to see what all the fuss was about; I think most people are able to make up >their own minds about whether or not they like the book, regardless of a >reviewer. And it _is_ just his opinion; no need to get steamed about it. > >>Feminist fiction is more than just adventures stories. It has important >>lessons for us specially when it deals with issues which affect women in >>their working and home lives or when it deals with issues like gay rights >>which the patriarchy has suppressed. > >Hey, c'mon, Ruth, maybe he just didn't like the book? Not every opinion a >man holds for or against a feminist novel is influenced by gender politics. > >Sant. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:35:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Plot vs Character: Goltzman Bruscell Comments: To: Joanna Goltzman Bruscell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Algis Budrys, possibly in the GALAXY book review columns collected in BENCHMARKS (SIU Press) but more likely in the F&SF reviews announced for collection by SIUP but not yet released (?), has at least once mentioned the difficulty of genuinely individuated characters in SF generally, because (to paraphrase from memory) the reader won't understand why the person is doing what they're doing in well-realized fantastic circumstances. This also would affect historical fiction, or "exotic" mimetic contemporary fiction, though in some cases perhaps not as much. Wish I could cite issue and page for you, but probably the late '70s/early '80s, possibly mid-70's (there are worse fates than paging through back issues of F&SF). Mike Stanton wrote: If I had to make a stark choice between "plot" and "character" I'd go for "plot" everytime; ************************************ Speaking of choosing plot over character development--hasn't this been a debate in science fiction over the years? Can anyone on the list give me any info on critics who talk about science fiction as plot driven and of characters as functioning as the means by which ideas are presented, rather than as human beings? Thanks. Joanna ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:28:09 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Re: Recent reading - April Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 29 Apr 99, at 23:55, Ruth t wrote: > You seem to be afraid of women displaying their > sexuality. For years men have forceed women to > act like good little girls without a thought of > sex in their heads and now that their displaying an > interest in it men suddenly get upset. I'm always deeply suspicious of the argument that what one reads (or talks about for that matter), defines one's sexuality. Would you call a person who reads and talks extensively about exotic foods but only eats gruel, a gourmet? Or a couch potato who avidly watches and discusses every game on TV, a sportsman? Sex isn't something to read about, it's something to *do*. It's been my experience that people - men or women - who talk big about their sexual needs and/or conquests are *always* exaggerating, often, perhaps usually, to the point of being all talk and no action. Most of the public expressions of sexual needs by female celebrities, for example, fall - I think - in this category. Madonna - who's always struck me as being as sexual as a dead fish - falls in to this category. The thing is though our politically-correct society treats male and female "sex bores" differently - boastful men are sneered at and called liars openly; boastful women are called "courageously open about sex" to their faces and sniggered at behind their backs. Think about that and, on a smaller scale, apply it to your own acquaintances. You may well find that I'm right. > I don't know how you can say your a feminist > and not accept that women have a right to express > their sexuality, lesbian or straight, as, when and > how they please. What sort of feminist books do you > read that leaves out these things? I've never said I was a feminist. Indeed, I've stated otherwise a good number of times. Women, like men, have the right to express their sexuality as they please. If they define their sexuality by what they *read* and not by what they *do*, that's also their choice. But it's *my* choice whether I accept them at their own valuation. Camille Paglia has much to say on this subject! > By saying its not worth reading and linking > it to Harlequin romance, which by the way can > often be very good reading, youre putting women > against the book even if you do add that last > sentence to try and cover it up. Anybody > whos read your comments will automaticaly look > for the bad parts and not take into account the > good parts. I've read a fair number of Harlequins and I must admit that they're not to my taste. But I'm not against romantic sf/f. Catherine Asaro (who's on this list) has written some really good stuff - erotic but without prurience or smothering the storyline in love affairs. > Feminist fiction is more than just adventures > stories. It has important lessons for us specially > when it deals with issues which affect women in > their working and home lives or when it deals with > issues like gay rights which the patriarchy has suppressed. I enjoy feminist sf/f (to the point where for the last six months it's been my main *recreational*) because it's quite different in style and content from the fiction I have to read as part of my job. But I must admit I *loathe* books with a message and avoid them wherever possible. Not just because of the message, but because authors all-too-often put "message" ahead of "story". And because in most cases (Russell's _The Children of God_ for example) the message is trivial to the point of insulting the reader's intelligence. And I think that a lot of people (particularly men) are like me. Which, as I've said before, is why feminist / gay etc sf/f books rarely sell enough copies to be classed as "mainstream". These books may win prizes, but I think the average sf/f reader tends to discount "prize-winning" books because he knows that the factors used in judging a book never include "enjoy-ability". Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:24:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: OT: religious communities in femsf In-Reply-To: <002e01be92f6$470877e0$2f6811d4@custom-pc.telekabel.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Lassnig wrote: > I was wondering whether any of you out there could help me with a question > pertaining to feminist utopian literature (although, strictly speaking, it's > OT)? I've been looking for 19th and 20th century novels by women that > portray a utopian vision with religious communities led by strong, > charismatic, male or female figures (such as Butler's Parable books). Could > anybody help me here, and suggest some authors (especially on the 19th > century)? > > Many thanks, Ines Lassnig > Don't know about 19th century, but Joan Slonczewski's novels would seem to fill the bill. See A Door into Ocean and The Children Star in particular. Judith Moffett's Pennterra is another one to look for as well. Mike Levy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:37:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michael Marc Levy Subject: Re: Recent reading - April--Enjoyable Award winners In-Reply-To: <80256763.0071DF10.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Mike Stanton wrote: > > And I think that a lot of people (particularly men) are like me. Which, as > I've said before, is why feminist / gay etc sf/f books rarely sell enough > copies to be classed as "mainstream". These books may win prizes, but I > think the average sf/f reader tends to discount "prize-winning" books > because he knows that the factors used in judging a book never include > "enjoy-ability". > As I tell my freshman English students, "never" is an awfully dangerous word. I'm not going to say that you're entirely wrong. I can't speak for everyone who ever judged a book award contest, after all. But isn't it equally likely that the people who are judging such contests simply enjoy books that are different from what you enjoy. I've been on award panels, the Phillip.K. Dick Award, the Crawford Award on two occasions, and every book I've voted for has been a book I thoroughly enjoyed, but I'm willing to bet, based on your comments about didactic fiction, that some of them were books you would have disliked intensely. Some people really do enjoy didactic fiction, especially if it has other good things going for it (ie. plot, characters). Among my favorite heavily didactic writers, for example, are Ursula K. LeGuin, Melissa Scott, Joan Slonczewski, Octavia Butler, and John Steinbeck. Mike Levy