From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:36:30 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:48:03 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9906B" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:11:47 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 7 Jun 99, at 9:56, Jennifer Krauel wrote >Claudia and Mike, >I too would love to see you join in the discussion >on Slow River. As Janice said, the new list is not >necessarily more academic, just on topic. >You may recall I've taken flames on-line for >promoting a non-academic perspective! I hope >you'll join me in helping to generate some lighter, >populist discussion (that we all know everyone will enjoy regardless of >their "orientation".) I think that Mike's view of feminist sf/f as reading matter to be criticised just like any other reading matter is likely to lead to the same sort of problems on the on-topic list that occurred here. For that reason, I don't feel it's a good idea for a non-feminist to join the on topic list which I think should be kept as one of the few "pure" feminist sf/f discussion forums (I'm not on the other list but I presume that's how it's run). On the other hand, I take your point about the undesirability of diluting the discussion of Slow River by spreading it over two lists, so I won't join in any discussion of it on this list. Perhaps we can review the position once the discussion of the book on the on topic list has run its course. I still think that there's a good case for a BDG of lighter books on this list. The BDG books for future discussion are To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis and Wild Seed by Octavia Butler, neither of which are IMO easy or even interesting reads. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:18:11 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Margery Kempe Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mike Stanton said >Indeed but, while I *should* support my wife, I *have* to obey my boss so >I'm on the horns of a dilemma - do I support the woman or obey the manager >? And it's worse than it appears - I'll have to fly directly from here >to Berlin for employment interviews of 1-3 July! Unless Im missing something this seems to be a funny statement to make in the days when people are tending to put their personal life above money grubbing. I feel that your wife is ill or probably pregnant but you seem to be suggesting that she must just get on with it while you travel all over working. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:15:38 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/8/99 5:18:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, the_anchoress@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > Unless Im missing something this seems to be a funny statement to make in > the days when people are tending to put their personal life above money > grubbing. I feel that your wife is ill or probably pregnant but you seem to > be suggesting that she must just get on with it while you travel all over > working. > > > Margery Kempe Yes, Margery, you are missing something. Mike wife is pregnant, but she is also his "boss" at work. I don't think Mike was saying Anthea should "get on with it", but was saying that he's trapped between what Anthea his wife would want him to do and what Anthea his boss would want him to do. Mike, my husband could understand--he's self-employed and I do all the bookkeeping, so he calls me the "boss". I want him to make more money so the bills will be paid, but I also want him to spend more time with his family. It is a dilemma ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:52:59 -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: mixed genres / Slow River In-Reply-To: <19990608091147.80358.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:11 AM 6/8/99 , Claudia wrote: >I still think that there's a good case for a BDG of lighter books on this >list. The BDG books for future discussion are To Say Nothing of the Dog by >Connie Willis and Wild Seed by Octavia Butler, neither of which are IMO easy >or even interesting reads. > > >Claudia > I loved _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and really enjoyed _Wild Seed_ so I'm shocked to hear that you find them difficult and uninteresting. Especially TSNOD which I thought was hilarious and entertaining... I am not sure how feminist it is, but am looking forward to the discussion to get a better feel for this. Why don't you like them? Sophia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:22:23 -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: mixed genres / Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I was about to say the same thing! I haven't read a single thing of Connie Willis' that I haven't absolutely loved. (well, Remake was a little off the wall, but it was still very entertaining!). TSNOTD I found to be VERY funny and easy to read, but I'd read The Doomsday Book beforehand, which helped introduce some of the concepts. Octavia Butler's stories may make me uncomfortable, but they're very well-written, and always make me THINK. :) Easy, maybe not, but interesting, definitely! -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Sophia Hegner [mailto:shegner@MAIL.SDSU.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 3:53 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] mixed genres / Slow River > > > At 02:11 AM 6/8/99 , Claudia wrote: > > >I still think that there's a good case for a BDG of lighter > books on this > >list. The BDG books for future discussion are To Say Nothing > of the Dog by > >Connie Willis and Wild Seed by Octavia Butler, neither of > which are IMO easy > >or even interesting reads. > > > > > >Claudia > > > > I loved _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and really enjoyed _Wild > Seed_ so I'm > shocked to hear that you find them difficult and > uninteresting. Especially > TSNOD which I thought was hilarious and entertaining... I am > not sure how > feminist it is, but am looking forward to the discussion to > get a better > feel for this. Why don't you like them? > > Sophia > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:18:53 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:11:47 PDT >From: Claudia Lyndhurst >Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River [snip] >I think that Mike's view of feminist sf/f as reading matter to be >criticised just like any other reading matter is likely to lead to the same >sort of problems on the on-topic list that occurred here. For that reason, >I don't feel it's a good idea for a non-feminist to >join the on topic list >which I think should be kept as one of the >few "pure" feminist sf/f discussion forums (I'm not on the other >list but >I presume that's how it's run). On the other hand, I take >your point about >the undesirability of diluting the >discussion of Slow River by spreading it over two lists, so I won't >join >in any discussion of it on this list. Perhaps we can review the >position >once the discussion of the book on the on topic list has run >its course. I think there's nothing wrong with parallel discussions: since the lists have different readerships and different rules, I think the talk will take completely different (and interesting) paths. I also would welcome the opportunity to discuss _Slow River_ in an "impure" environment. Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:59:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "T. M. Jones" Subject: Delurking MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been on the list a while and am delurking long enough to say hi! And, is there a site where one can find a mailing address to send fan mail to their favorite authors? I have been wanting to send fan mail to Octavia Butler for some time now, not only because I attended one of her lectures, but because I really admire her work. Later, Tanya Everything the power of the world does is done in a circle. Black Elk, Black Elk Speaks moerae@ttu.edu ------------- Things that don't have a backbone are mistakes. Octavia Butler FOR A SPEEDY RESPONSE TO YOUR MESSAGE, PLEASE UTILIZE THE SUBJECT LINE. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:00:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "T. M. Jones" Subject: Delurking MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been on the list a while and am delurking long enough to say hi! "HI!" And, is there a site where one can find a mailing address to send fan mail to their favorite authors? I have been wanting to send fan mail to Octavia Butler for some time now, not only because I attended one of her lectures, but because I really admire her work. Later, Tanya I admit it is more fun to punt than to be punted, and that a desire to have all the fun is nine-tenths of the law of chivalry. Dorothy Sayers ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:32:37 -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: Delurking MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I'd be surprised if Butler doesn't have her own site, but if search engines fail to turn one up, try sending a message through the SFFWA site (the SF and Fantasy Writers of America). Possibly there's a Four Walls Eight Windows site, as well (one of her publishers, and small enough for the mail not to sit among thousands, possibly, or small enough so no one has time to treat with the email, also possibly...) -----Original Message----- From: T. M. Jones [mailto:moerae@TTACS.TTU.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 11:00 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Delurking I've been on the list a while and am delurking long enough to say hi! And, is there a site where one can find a mailing address to send fan mail to their favorite authors? I have been wanting to send fan mail to Octavia Butler for some time now, not only because I attended one of her lectures, but because I really admire her work. Later, Tanya Everything the power of the world does is done in a circle. Black Elk, Black Elk Speaks moerae@ttu.edu ------------- Things that don't have a backbone are mistakes. Octavia Butler FOR A SPEEDY RESPONSE TO YOUR MESSAGE, PLEASE UTILIZE THE SUBJECT LINE. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:24:26 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 8 Jun 99, at 15:52, Sophia Hegner wrote: >I loved _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and really enjoyed _Wild Seed_ so I'm >shocked to hear that you find them difficult and uninteresting. Especially >TSNOD which I thought was hilarious and entertaining... I am not sure how >feminist it is, but am looking forward to the discussion to get a better >feel for this. Why don't you like them? Because I normally read crime, mystery etc novels, I dislike books which don't keep me interested from the first page to the last. Octavia Butler's writing generally, and the Wild Seed especially, is politically correct and very predictable. Since I'd already read Clay's Ark and knew how her mind worked, I found it easy to predict in advance how her Wild Seed characters would behave in given situations. Her writing is so stark that once I'd worked out the main storyline, there was nothing left to interest me. I read Clay's Ark because Octavia Bulter is "black" and found it dull. I only read Wild Seed because it's partly about Africa but, as a person of *very recent* African descent, I found her knowledge of Africa very sketchy and her writing patronizing. Before I discuss To Say Nothing of the Dog I've got to confess to a secret vice. I'm a great admirer of Sherlock Holmes and I have a very good knowledge of the Victorian era and Victorian detective stories. Connie Willis obviously doesn't. She wrote what I thought was a costume drama where the characters , who all seemed two dimensional, behaved in exactly the same way that we would behave. Her Victorians were no no more Victorian than I am. Her book was anachronistic and too easily predictable to an old crime reader. What really irritated me though was the persistent endless non-stop "humour" as if she deliberately set out to write a book that would be universally proclaimed a masterpiece of wit. Unfortunately after the first 10 pages, the wit and humour seem too forced to be enjoyable. Writing humour is very difficult to do well at the best of times and it requires a real talent to master it; Piers Anthony (chuckle) and Terry Pratchett (chuckle, chuckle) have it, Connie Willis (again) doesn't. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:12:23 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 9 Jun 99, at 6:18, Daniel Krashin wrote: >I think there's nothing wrong with parallel discussions: since the >lists have different readerships and different rules, I think the >talk will take completely different (and interesting) paths. >I also would welcome the opportunity to discuss _Slow River_ in >an "impure" environment. My idea was that we would discuss it as a *novel* instead of discussing its merits as a collection and exposition of feminist ideals so while we would acknowledge its feminist origin we wouldn't allow that to affect our judgment of the book. The book would have to stand on its own merits (something which I can honestly say Slow River would do easily). Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:11:21 +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: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 8 Jun 99, at 18:15, Tanya Bouwman wrote: > Mike, my husband could understand--he's self-employed and > I do all the bookkeeping, so he calls me the "boss". I want him to make > more money so the bills will be paid, but I also want him to spend more time > with his family. It is a dilemma Thanks for your comment. We've just started the business, but unfortunately things have gone well - far too well. Instead of having 6 months to plan, train and gradually implement, we've had to hit the ground running which hasn't been easy on AJ. She's had to put in 60 hour weeks while 6 & 7 months pregnant; the next 5 weeks are going to be murder on her. Still, as I'm sure you've found out, there's nothing more satisfying than living *and* working with your "life" partner, especially when you're starting your own company. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:13:29 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Yesterday someone lent me C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_ (*****) (according to the copyright statement it was originally published in hardback as _Scarlet Dream_). I enjoyed it thoroughly. I don't know whether she was a well known author, but her work is truly outstanding. I'm normally cautious about recommending an author after reading only one book, but I'm going to make an exception in her case. The eponymous hero is a thief, mercenary and general plugugly, but he's perhaps the most absorbing character of the type that I've ever "met" (even more so than Edmund Hamilton's Morgan Chane or Jack Vance's Kirth Gersen). The book itself is a 1981 collection of 8 short stories, 7 published in *Weird tales* between 1933 and 1936 and 1 in 1957 in *Fantastic Universe*, but the tales appear as fresh and undated as when they were written. Very strongly recommended. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:43:42 -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: C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" C(atherine). L. Moore was the most famous and widely-respected of the female pulp sf writers of the '30s and '40s, with the possible exception of Leigh Brackett. Like LB, she married another major writer (LB and Edmund Hamilton, CLM and Henry Kuttner); unlike LB and EH, Moore and Kuttner became incredibly prolific collaborators, as "Lawrence O'Donnell" among many other names, and even some of the work they published individually under their real names was said to usually have input from the other (their prolificacy gave rise to two parlor games--"Guess which part of the story is hers and which is his!" and "Hey, is this dynamic new writer really Kuttner and/or Moore?"--Jack Vance was still being cited as one of their pseudonyms in bad references as late as the '70s). Her other major series for WEIRD TALES were the Jirel of Joiry series, the first female-protagonist fantastic-adventure series in the pulps I think, but wouldn't swear by it, and unfortunately after her husband's premature death (in 1957 or '8) she didn't publish much, even though she lived on until a couple of years ago. SFFWA awarded her Grandmaster status, I believe; if they didn't, they should have. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] Yesterday someone lent me C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_ (*****) (according to the copyright statement it was originally published in hardback as _Scarlet Dream_). I enjoyed it thoroughly. I don't know whether she was a well known author, but her work is truly outstanding. I'm normally cautious about recommending an author after reading only one book, but I'm going to make an exception in her case. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:32:14 -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: C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_: Stanton, revised. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" "for WEIRD TALES was the Jirel of Joiry sequence." Sigh. I've been blocking on the title one of her most famous "solo" stories until now: "Vintage Season" -----Original Message----- From: Todd Mason Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:44 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_: Stanton C(atherine). L. Moore was the most famous and widely-respected of the female pulp sf writers of the '30s and '40s, with the possible exception of Leigh Brackett. Like LB, she married another major writer (LB and Edmund Hamilton, CLM and Henry Kuttner); unlike LB and EH, Moore and Kuttner became incredibly prolific collaborators, as "Lawrence O'Donnell" among many other names, and even some of the work they published individually under their real names was said to usually have input from the other (their prolificacy gave rise to two parlor games--"Guess which part of the story is hers and which is his!" and "Hey, is this dynamic new writer really Kuttner and/or Moore?"--Jack Vance was still being cited as one of their pseudonyms in bad references as late as the '70s). Her other major series for WEIRD TALES were the Jirel of Joiry series, the first female-protagonist fantastic-adventure series in the pulps I think, but wouldn't swear by it, and unfortunately after her husband's premature death (in 1957 or '8) she didn't publish much, even though she lived on until a couple of years ago. SFFWA awarded her Grandmaster status, I believe; if they didn't, they should have. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] Yesterday someone lent me C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_ (*****) (according to the copyright statement it was originally published in hardback as _Scarlet Dream_). I enjoyed it thoroughly. I don't know whether she was a well known author, but her work is truly outstanding. I'm normally cautious about recommending an author after reading only one book, but I'm going to make an exception in her case. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:00:16 -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: C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_: Stanton, revised. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would have said her most famous solo story was "No Woman Born," but I'm never completely sure how much of her or Kuttner's stories are in fact solo. "Vintage Season" has always been bylined by the two of them, though I've heard that she did most of the work. I'm pretty sure that Jirel lives up to Todd's billing as the historically first female sf series heroine. She admitted that her "science" was strictly sf rhetoric, and the stories are conventional myth-adventures, but the sensory detail is impressive. She was also a very nice person, kind enough to appear with me (30 years ago) on my very first panel (at an English teacher's conference) as a newly minted PhD with a dissertation on sf. Todd Mason wrote: > "for WEIRD TALES was the Jirel of Joiry sequence." Sigh. > > I've been blocking on the title one of her most famous "solo" stories until > now: "Vintage Season" > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Mason > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:44 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_: Stanton > > C(atherine). L. Moore was the most famous and widely-respected of the female > pulp sf writers of the '30s and '40s, with the possible exception of Leigh > Brackett. Like LB, she married another major writer (LB and Edmund > Hamilton, CLM and Henry Kuttner); unlike LB and EH, Moore and Kuttner became > incredibly prolific collaborators, as "Lawrence O'Donnell" among many other > names, and even some of the work they published individually under their > real names was said to usually have input from the other (their prolificacy > gave rise to two parlor games--"Guess which part of the story is hers and > which is his!" and "Hey, is this dynamic new writer really Kuttner and/or > Moore?"--Jack Vance was still being cited as one of their pseudonyms in bad > references as late as the '70s). Her other major series for WEIRD TALES > were the Jirel of Joiry series, the first female-protagonist > fantastic-adventure series in the pulps I think, but wouldn't swear by it, > and unfortunately after her husband's premature death (in 1957 or '8) she > didn't publish much, even though she lived on until a couple of years ago. > SFFWA awarded her Grandmaster status, I believe; if they didn't, they should > have. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] > > Yesterday someone lent me C L Moore's _Northwest Smith_ (*****) (according > to the copyright statement it was originally published in hardback as > _Scarlet Dream_). I enjoyed it thoroughly. I don't know whether she was a > well known author, but her work is truly outstanding. I'm normally cautious > about recommending an author after reading only one book, but I'm going to > make an exception in her case. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:08:02 -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: mixed genres / Slow River In-Reply-To: <19990609171227.76657.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 07:12 PM 6/9/99 CEST, Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >My idea was that we would discuss it as a *novel* instead of discussing its >merits as a collection and exposition of feminist ideals so while we would >acknowledge its feminist origin we wouldn't allow that to affect our >judgment of the book. The book would have to stand on its own merits >(something which I can honestly say Slow River would do easily). This approach is really not in conflict with the current BDG mission. None of the books we have discussed have been evaluated *only* on their feminist content. This was just as true for *Grass* (the first BDG book to be discussed on the FemSF-Lit list) as it was for all the others. If anyone is curious, all of the previous discussions are archived at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/bdg_archives.html If people are concerned about being buried in messages by subscribing to yet another mailing list, I want to point out that so far the FemSF-Lit list has not been very high volume. Most days see less than five messages. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: XTC -- Apple Venus Volume 1 "...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: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:17:08 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 9 Jun 99, at 20:08, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >This approach is really not in conflict with the current BDG mission. None >of the books we have discussed have been evaluated *only* on their >feminist content. I think it's more a difference of what people might say. You'll recall the clashes that have occurred on this list when major feminist works have been criticised because many people, especially those devoted to a cause, are unable to accept that criticism of a *novel* as a "work of art" isn't a rejection of all the feminist ideas in the book. Taking Mike Stanton as an example you'll remember what happened when he said that he was only interested in the lighter side of feminist sf and that he didn't like sex in fiction. At least one person nearly had an apoplexy and he nearly got kicked off the list. What I'd like to see is vigorous, reasoned *debate* which means vigorous, reasoned *disagreement*. X says "Slow River was absolutely brilliant because ...." and Y replies "Rubbish! Slow River was arrant nonsense because ....". Too many people don't understand that if they join in a debate, they must expect that someone else will disagree with what they say (especially if they talk garbage or misunderstand something). Even here the furore over the Christian "Messiah" theme was an awful example. Someone joined in a debate and when she was corrected started whimpering and someone else *who also joined in the debate* found it necessary to call me "obnoxious". I don't mind being called "obnoxious", but what I do mind is someone calling me that for correcting mistakes while *at the same time* trying to "correct" me. I've been having a debate with 6 people (1 on this list) about The Silver Blaze for the last 2 weeks. Not only has it been vigorous but on occasions it's got downright nasty but none of us have run off crying, all of us have *tried* to debate in a reasonable way and all of us have tried to back up our ideas with quotations from other works by the Master and the literature. Imagine what would happen here ... first someone would hurl accusations of ethnic prejudice, "obnoxious" would be the least insult uttered and some know-nothing would protest about quotations and demand that we give only our own ideas. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:41:27 -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: mixed genres / Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: > What I'd like to see is vigorous, reasoned *debate* which means > vigorous, reasoned *disagreement*. X says "Slow River was absolutely > brilliant because ...." and Y replies "Rubbish! Slow River was arrant > nonsense because ....". Too many people don't understand that if they > join in a debate, they must expect that someone else will disagree > with what they say (especially if they talk garbage or misunderstand > something). But I don't understand how splitting the BDG into two separate discussions will in any way address this issue. All of the examples you have given are taken from *this same list*, not the Lit list and were not part of official BDG discussions. There has been some quite profound disagreement in the BDG about individual books (one of the more recent examples being *Jaran*), but most people have been civil about it. More so than in general discussions, at any rate. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: XTC -- Apple Venus Volume 1 "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:37:38 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Freddie Baer Subject: Of Interest to BDG:Sun and Moon Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >From SFWire http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?1999-06/09/21.40.film 9:40pm 9-June-99 Henson Options McIntyre's Moon Jim Henson Pictures has picked up the film rights to Vonda N. McIntyre's Nebula Award-winning novel The Moon and the Sun. The book takes place in 17th century France, where King Louis XIV orders the capture of a rare sea monster that he believes may hold the secret to immortality. Christopher Renshaw will make his feature film directorial debut on the project, which is being scripted by Laura Harrington. McIntyre said she'll be available to assist Harrington with "whatever research and insight I can offer." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:46:47 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Valerie Eakes-Kann Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: > > My idea was that we would discuss it as a *novel* instead of discussing its > merits as a collection and exposition of feminist ideals so while we would > acknowledge its feminist origin we wouldn't allow that to affect our > judgment of the book. The book would have to stand on its own merits > (something which I can honestly say Slow River would do easily). > > Claudia Me too. So if someone says a book is great just because it supports feminist ideals and the writing sucks, I'm going to say so. I also think that belief in something needs to be able to stand up to some criticism or it's not very strong and might need to be analyzed. I think the other list will do that. If not there will be some debate, and I charge in boldy to the task... How can the feminist origin of a book not affect one's judgement of the book? The feminist origin being one of many factors affecting judgement of books... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:09:24 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: MOON AND THE SUN optioned MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's great news! Thanks for sharing! Wonder if their vision of the seawoman will be anything like mine or Vonda's for that matter? :) Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 858.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:31:38 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:17:08 CEST >From: Claudia Lyndhurst >Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River >I think it's more a difference of what people might say. You'll recall the >clashes that have occurred on this list when major feminist works have been >criticised because many people, especially >those devoted to a cause, are >unable to accept that criticism of a *novel* as a "work of art" isn't a >rejection of all the feminist ideas in the book. Taking Mike Stanton as an >example you'll remember what happened when he said that he was only >interested in the lighter side of feminist sf and that he didn't like sex >in fiction. At least one person nearly had an apoplexy and he nearly got >kicked off the list. Really? I remember the discussion, but I don't remember that Mike was threatened with getting kicked off the list. Mike, were you really threatened? I disagreed with what you said, but I thought you were expressing your honest opinion and not trying to instigate trouble. That shouldn't be enough to get anyone banned, according to the rules of this place. Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:15:21 HST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Margery Kempe Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote >I've been having a debate with 6 people (1 on this list) about The Silver >Blaze for the last 2 weeks. Not only has it been vigorous but on occasions >it's got downright nasty but none of us have run off crying, all of us >have *tried* to debate in a reasonable way and all of us have tried to >back up our ideas with quotations from other works by the Master and the >literature. Im probably the only person on the list who needs to ask this but what is the Silver Blaze and who wrote it? Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:49:17 HST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Margery Kempe Subject: Book discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote >I still think that there's a good case for a BDG of lighter books on this >list. The BDG books for future discussion are To Say Nothing of the Dog by >Connie Willis and Wild Seed by Octavia Butler, neither of which are IMO >easy or even interesting reads. Claudia I've been waiting for a followup to this very good idea. I expected a lot of book discussion on the list when I joined but since 2 June, there's been nothing. Couldn't someone suggest a book perhaps a well knwon one by a strong feminist author and we just start. I don't think that the discussion of Slow River is ever likely to get going so I think it is time to move on to something new. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:12:47 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Carolyn Bremer Subject: Re: Book discussion In-Reply-To: <19990611214917.44053.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" A newbie jumping in here... Margery Kempe recently posted a method to generate book discussion. I think suggesting a book(s) to discuss is a good start as well. In that vein, I would like to hear what members of this list feel are downright terrific feminist books. Perhaps they're valued for something quirky, perhaps their handling of feminist issues, or perhaps incredibly well written prose. I'd like to suggest that the criteria for these lists would be up to each individual poster, though a brief annotation of the book's positive attributes would be helpful. Would it be appropriate or beneficial to ask people to post such lists? I do have some strong opinions of the value of "favorites" lists and their relationship to the merits of a book (suffice it to say that when one discusses how well they liked something, it tends to say something more about them than the work itself), but if we recognized the limitations of such lists (as well as the value of learning more about each other by what books we choose to mention) they may well provide several good candidates for books to discuss. -Carolyn Bremer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:40:51 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: mixed genres / Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 11 Jun 99, at 12:15, Margery Kempe wrote: >Im probably the only person on the list who needs to ask this but what is >the Silver Blaze and who wrote it? It's a Sherlock Holmes' story (actually the first story in the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes) by the English writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I'm sure you know that these stories were set largely in Victorian England at the end of the last and the beginning of this century which is why I linked them in an earlier posting to Connie Willis' novel, _To Say Nothing of the Dog_, set at (very) roughly the same time. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:43:43 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Suggestion for book discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 11 Jun 99, at 11:49, Margery Kempe wrote: > Couldn't someone suggest a book perhaps a well knwon one by > a strong feminist author and we just start. I don't think that the > discussion of Slow River is ever likely to get going so I think > it is time to move on to something new. I'd like to take up this suggestion and to recommend C J Cherryh's _Downbelow Station_ as the book for discussion. Justification: C J Cherryh is amongst the best known of the strong, feminist writers and she is also, with the arguable exception of Lois McMaster Bujold, *the* major feminist force in mainstream sf/f. In general her works are complex in setting, plotting and characterization - far more so than some of the more "heavier" feminist authors. Cherryh is not an "easy" author but her masterly grasp of detail, her ability for succinct, concise explanation and her complex but "real" universes make her the most rewarding of all the feminist authors I have read. The "hardness" and complexity of her work makes it unadvisable for a reader new to her work to start with just one of her books picked up at random. It's far better for such a reader to start with one of five books (_Tripoint_, _Downbelow Station_, _Finity's End_, _Merovingen Nights: Angel with a Sword_ or _Pride of Chanur_). Each of these books gives relatively easy entry to her work and her idiosyncratic style, and, with the exception of _Pride of Chanur_ (which contains the most "believable" aliens in modern sf), provides an almost complete overview of her principal universe. My choice of _Downbelow Station_ as the "type section" for her books was based on its (relatively) easy accessibility, the critical stage in the history of Cherryh's universe that _Downbelow Station_ describes, the magnificent (word chosen carefully) characterization, the sympathetic views she has of both sides in conflict, the complex yet totally understandable plotting and the "realism" with which Cherryh has invested the book. It also won a Hugo. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:45:57 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Leigh Brackett and other things Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I've just read _The Sword of Rhiannon_ (*****) by Leigh Brackett. A magnicent (seem to be overdoing this word today) writer. Although I've only read one book, I'm going (yet again) to break my rule of not recommending an author after only reading one book. She really is a superb writer. She was the wife of Edmund Hamilton, another superb writer (perhaps - judging only by one of her books - marginally inferior to Brackett); Brackett was a screen writer for _The Empire Strikes Back_. I'd also like to recommend two books by Joanna M Bolton, _The alien within_ (***--) and _Mission: Tori_ (***--). I'm NOT recommending the author generally (I don't know whether she's well-known or has written only these two books). They're both very pleasant space opera with a bias towards the mystery genre. Has anyone seen the film _Wing Commander_? I saw it earlier this year and felt it was - _Top Gun_ *meets* _Battlestar Galactica_ *meets* _Das Boot_ *meets* _Captain Horatio Hornblower_. In other words a ripe lot of old hooey. The film has just opened near where a friend lives and he saw it yesterday; he was much taken by the "feminist theme" running through the film. I didn't really notice any; possibly I blinked at the wrong moment. Did anyone else? Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:39:53 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: book discussion proposals, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frankly, being on both FEMSF and FEMSF-LIT where the SLOW RIVER discussion is proceeding rapidly, along with a few smatterings of GRASS which took place parallel to a discussion of Maureen MdHugh's MISSION CHILD, I am confused. People on this list who want to discuss FEMSF books but aren't on the other list, despite the couple of very clear posts (to me) from Jennifer K, and proposing a separate book discussion on this list might want to check the archives and FAQs from when FEMSF-Lit was established to be clear on the purposes of both lists? Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 858.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:28:25 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: book discussion proposals, etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 11 Jun 99, at 20:39, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >Frankly, being on both FEMSF and FEMSF-LIT where >the SLOW RIVER discussion is proceeding rapidly, along with a few >smatterings of GRASS which took >place parallel to a discussion of Maureen MdHugh's >MISSION CHILD, I am confused. People on this list >who want to discuss FEMSF books but aren't on the >other list, despite the couple of very clear posts (to >me) from Jennifer K, and proposing a separate book >discussion on this list might want to check the archives and FAQs from when >FEMSF-Lit was >established to be clear on the purposes of both lists? Maryelizabeth I want to read and talk about the sort of books that I'm prepared to buy because I expect to enjoy them and I want reading suggestions about the types of books I enjoy. Is that so wrong? The reason I'm on this list most of all is to enjoy myself. I'm a new mother and I also have a demanding job so I just don't have the time to waste doing things that I don't enjoy during the few short *precious* hours per day that I have free. I haven't read Mission Child and don't intend to. I didn't like Grass (or any other of Sherri Tepper's books). As for the future BDG books, I didn't like either To Say Nothing Of The Dog or Wild Seed (or the other Octavia Butler book I've read) so I'm not interested in talking about them. Even when the BDG was on this list I used to trash the BDG postings without reading them because I didn't like any of the BDG books discussed. Let me say first of all that I've read all the 120 postings made on the on-topic list from 3rd May and I've got to confess that, although I liked Slow River, I'm not at all interested in that sort of discussion about it. It just isn't my thing. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:55:09 -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: book discussion proposals, etc. In-Reply-To: <19990612172826.98897.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There can be as many different lists and discussions, organized or not, as there are people who want to have them. The world is a bountiful place. I hope that Claudia and Mike and anyone else feels completely free to use this or any other list however they like. I would be quite interested in understanding how the current Slow River discussion disappoints you, Claudia (or anyone else) and feel free to e-mail me privately with your opinions. If I gain that understanding by following a parallel discussion on this list, that's OK with me. Some people will be confused, but if more people participate overall that still meets my goals. Perhaps it will help us understand how to improve the process so that we can have the maximum people playing and the minimum confusion. Claudia, I have been remiss in congratulating you on your new child, who is probably not even that new anymore. I am very glad you are finding time for both motherhood and these discussions. Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:20:57 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: book discussion proposals, etc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/12/99 1:29:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, clyndhurst@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > The reason I'm on this list most of all is to enjoy myself. I'm a new mother > and I also have a demanding job so I just don't have the time to waste doing > things that I don't enjoy during the few short *precious* hours per day that > I have free. I haven't read Mission Child and don't intend to. I didn't like > Grass (or any other of Sherri Tepper's books). As for the future BDG books, > I didn't like either To Say Nothing Of The Dog or Wild Seed (or the other > Octavia Butler book I've read) so I'm not interested in talking about them. > Even when the BDG was on this list I used to trash the BDG postings without > reading them because I didn't like any of the BDG books discussed. Claudia, I am also a mother with few "precious" moments, so I truly understand your comments. When I joined the other list I started a discussion about a book I was reading at the time. The discussion continued for about 2 weeks then moved, in a natural manner, on to "Mission Child". I am not going to suggest you leave this list and join the other since, as I recall, this list is open to book discussions as well as other discussions about feminism; but, I would suggest that you can start a discussion about a book on either list simply by saying, "I've read ____, would anyone like to discuss it?" Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:59:35 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Ways of discussing Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 12 Jun 99, at 11:55, Jennifer Krauel wrote: >I would be quite interested in understanding how the current Slow River >discussion disappoints you, Claudia (or anyone else) and feel free to >e-mail me privately with your opinions. If I gain that understanding by >following a parallel discussion on this list, that's OK with me. Some >people will be confused, but if more people participate overall that still >meets my goals. Perhaps it will help us understand how to improve the >process so that we can have the maximum people playing and the minimum >confusion. Please don't think I'm "disappointed" because the feministsf-lit discussion is somehow "defective". It's simply a question of the way I like to look at things, the type of thing that *I like*. A simple question of taste. The feministsf-lit discussion has proceeded from the *tacit* viewpoint that the book is in some ways a biography - or rather an autobiography - of Lore. The characters are treated *almost* as if they are real people with real emotions. For example, the entire discussion has mostly revolved around the feelings of the characters (especially Lore). An example is the discussion about Lore's feeling of rage (Joyce Jones' note of 12 June is an excellent example) and similarly the prior discussion of Lore's emotions on having killed one of her kidnappers. Even the discussions of setting (for example the sewage plant) was around the feelings that Lore must have had about working in that environment. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this approach because of course Sherlock Holmes devotees use it (tongue in cheek) all the time. It's just not interesting to me because I think it's pretty futile if the approach isn't used with a conscious knowledge of its own absurdity. My approach would be towards Slow River as a "work of literature produced by Nicole Griffith" and the focus would, *implicitly or explicitly*, be on Nicole Griffith. The style, setting structure, plot, characterization etc were conscious choices of hers and it is her creation - and thus essentially Nicole Griffith's own creative mind - that we're examining. Clearly the discussion can't or shouldn't be conducted strictly on such narrow lines but we should keep in mind that we are *criticising* a work of literature and by extension the author of that work. Considering a few random points: for example I consider the book's most striking quality is the "random" shifts between the third and first person viewpoints. Why? What did the author want to achieve? Did she succeed? Could this have been done more effectively in a different way? I think this is perhaps the most important, and critical point of style, and to some extent it determines how one has to read the book. *I* think Nicole Griffith appears to have used it at least partly to guide the reader's interaction with the text. Am I right or did she have a completely different purpose in mind? This is a technique which is dangerous because it could easily have made the book unreadable *but* of course in this case it didn't. A point of particular interest to me is the "random" viewpoints shift - clearly they're not "random" because they fit in too well with the book's structure but what criteria did Griffith use to determine their positioning? The setting: why did the author choose a sewage plant instead of (to go to the opposite pole) the clean rooms of a pharmaceutical plant? If she wanted an ecological theme, why not strip mining with bacteria to treat acid mine water or burning forests with bacteria to reduce atmospheric pollution etc? I'm not talking about the "symbolic" or philosophical aspects, but the nitty-gritty detail of why the author thought that the waste plant setting was the best setting? Her setting worked very well, of course, but why? What's so special about a waste treatment plant in this context that makes it the ideal setting for the start of the "new", post-kidnap Lore's life? The characterization: Lore, the chief character, is a creature spun by Griffith out of thin air but "she" evolved or rather matured over the book; how and why did Nicole Griffith do this? Griffith endowed her creation with certain qualities, including beauty, brains and education; some of these were possibly just to make the character seem real, to allow the reader to imagine Lore as a living, breathing person but Griffith almost certainly selected the finer details of those qualities to fit in with the story she had in mind, both for the "starting" character and to allow the character to "mature" through the story. Why and how did she select the characteristics her character needed to mature? How did Lore's much vaunted education, for example, fit into the plot, or was it just an extraneous detail Griffith threw in to add depth and versimilitude to the character? Perhaps I like this approach because I earn my living through writing of a kind and also because I'm a novelist manque (so "manque" that I've never even submitted a novel for publication). Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 20:47:42 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: book discussion proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to both Claudia for clarification and Tanya for, IMO, an excellent suggestion. Mike: You might want to mention upfront that while DOWNBELOW STATION is a wonderful book, it does contain a major anachronistic flaw. Maybe if we say so up front, people can just get past it and focus on the good stuff? :) Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 858.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:30:56 +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: book discussion proposals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 12 Jun 99, at 20:47, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Mike: You might want to mention upfront that while DOWNBELOW STATION is a > wonderful book, it does contain a major anachronistic flaw. Maybe if we > say so up front, people can just get past it and focus on the good stuff? > :) Maryelizabeth You've caught me! I simply can't think of a major flaw - a flaw that would would negatively affect enjoyment of the work in some significant way. The book does have quite a few flaws and errors (much as I *hate* to admit it) especially in its forward projections of politics, of social "relations" (including relationships between genders) and of economics but none that aren't immediately attributable to its age, origin and the fact that it was her first in this universe. And you've also flicked me on my weak point - vanity about my knowledge of words. I simply can't think how anything could be anachronistic in a book set in an *imaginary*, *future* universe which is a creation of the author and which is thus infinitely malleable. Perhaps it's something that I wouldn't recognize as "anachronistic" in the sense of "chronologically misplaced", "referring to an object or event located at a time when it could not have existed or occurred", "concerning an artifact or object that belongs to another time", "relating to an event, custom, or circumstance occurring to a wrong period of time" or even "erroneous in date or order". I'm desperate to know the answer to this one. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:15:57 -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: Ways of discussing Slow River In-Reply-To: <19990613115937.31541.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:59 PM 6/13/99 CEST, Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >The feministsf-lit discussion has proceeded from the *tacit* viewpoint that >the book is in some ways a biography - or rather an autobiography - of Lore. >The characters are treated *almost* as if they are real people with real >emotions. For example, the entire discussion has mostly revolved around the >feelings of the characters (especially Lore). An example is the discussion >about Lore's feeling of rage (Joyce Jones' note of 12 June is an excellent >example) and similarly the prior discussion of Lore's emotions on having >killed one of her kidnappers. Even the discussions of setting (for example >the sewage plant) was around the feelings that Lore must have had about >working in that environment. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this >approach because of course Sherlock Holmes devotees use it (tongue in cheek) >all the time. It's just not interesting to me because I think it's pretty >futile if the approach isn't used with a conscious knowledge of its own >absurdity. Claudia -- I think many of the questions you raise are good ones. Some have even been asked in the discussion on the FemSF-Lit list (i.e. the question about the changes in perspective, which Nicola replied to). I am still puzzled as to why you think these kinds of questions would not be welcomed and discussed on the other list. Just as on this list, the subjects that are dealt with are the ones that are actually brought up by people posting. One can never expect that others will bring up the subjects that you want to talk about, but that doesn't mean that they are not interested. Maybe they just haven't thought of them in your particular way. That's the beauty of discussion -- it's a give and take process. As far as the absurdity of talking about the book as if it is an autobiography of Lore... it strikes me that this is no *more* absurd than trying to divine the intentions of an author. In most cases you will never learn the author's intentions (with *Slow River* we are lucky enough to have the author on-list, but that is rare) -- and it often turns out that authors are not even aware of all of the themes and subtexts of their own books! Obviously this is just a question of taste, as you say. I happen to like pondering an author's intentions myself (the discussions about *An Exchange of Hostages* and *Dark Water's Embrace* were interesting in that way), but it is no more or less important than analysing my own reactions to a text or examining a book's internal consistency. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: XTC -- Apple Venus Volume 1 "...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: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:04:06 CEST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Claudia Lyndhurst Subject: Re: Ways of discussing Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 13 Jun 99, at 14:15, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >I am still puzzled as to why you think these kinds of questions would not >be welcomed and discussed on the other list. Janice The answer to this question would be too provocative . >As [for why it is absurd to talk] about the book as if it is an >autobiography of Lore... Perhaps it's because the character never existed except once (but no longer) in Nicole Griffith's head and now only between the pages of the book. She is defined only in what the author has *chosen* to tell us in the book in question. Lore's emotions (and other "parameters") except those described in the book, are accessible to none of us - including the author (unless she publishes a revised edition). I've used "parameters", the hallmark of artificiality, because that's what Lore is - an artificial construct with a series of characteristics designed to match a particular environment, to think specific thoughts and to execute particular actions. >it strikes me that this is no *more* absurd than trying to divine the >intentions of an author. most cases you will never learn the author's >intentions >(with *Slow River* we are lucky enough to have >the author on-list, but that is rare) -- and it >often turns out that authors are not even aware >of all of the themes and subtexts of their own books! I think you're talking about something quite different here. The intentions of the author really existed and speculating about them is perfectly legitimate, even if, as you say, we can never know the true answers. This is very far from guessing at the non-existent emotions (for example) of a fictional character. Besides which, divining the author's intentions is only a part of the analysis of "(a) work of literature produced by Nicole Griffith" because the analysis of the work goes much farther than "intentions". Let us be blunt: the writing of a book is an act of communication - and communication involves not only the author's intentions but also the effect that these "intentions" have on every reader. My "guess" at the author's intentions is more than that - it's also an analysis of the way the book affected me. If a particular part of the book elates or disgusts me, the reasons for that elation or disgust are just as legitimate as the author's intention(s) in writing that particular part. >Obviously this is just a question of taste, as you >say. I happen to like pondering an author's intentions myself (the >discussions about *An >Exchange of Hostages* and *Dark Water's Embrace* >were interesting in that way), but it is no more or less important than >analysing my own reactions >to a text or examining a book's internal consistency. Clearly this paragraph is largely in agreement with what I have written above BUT we differ in the interpretation of what you say. "Analysing my own reactions" I agree, within the limitations of what I said in my previous paragraph, is an important adjunct to understanding the book, but analysing one's reaction to speculative extensions to non-existent emotions is, IN MY OPINION, futile. Checking the "internal consistency" is much of a muchness; the only way to do this is to check whether the behaviour etc of the character, say, is consistent with the thoughts (expressed or implied) that the author describes for us. It is, in my opinion, pointless to invent a series of emotions which a NON-EXISTENT character MIGHT have had, and then apply these to a series of actions or situations which did not occur in the book. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:50:57 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lori B Pfahler Subject: Women Scientists in Fiction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not exactly on topic (but somewhat related) but I found this interesting essay at the HMS Beagle - the BioMedNet Magazine (an excellent e-journal covering biology and medicine). You must "join" to view, but joining is free and I have not been inundated with junk mail. http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/47/booksoft/essay.htm The essay talks about the portrayal of women scientists in mainstream contemporary fiction and some themes running through several novels. The first being how rare such portrayals are. Also (direcly from the essay): 1) The drama of science, centering on the possession and integrity of the discovery. (2) Relationships, and their influence on a woman's life and work. (3) The problem of genius: What is genius, and can it be tolerated in a woman? (4) The withdrawal from science, as portrayed by no fewer than six of these of these nine novels discussed here. Being in a scientific profession, I found the discussion fascinating. I am always trying to understand why I have so few women colleagues. It amazes me how often I find myself the sole woman in a meeting - I usually notice when I don't find a joke humorous -- then I notice that I am the only woman there. Enjoy, Lori B. Pfahler Lori_B_Pfahler@rohmhaas.com Statistics Support Group Rohm and Haas Company Spring House Research Labs "These are my opinions and not those of the Rohm and Haas Company" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:25:42 -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: Women Scientists in Fiction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Aside from interesting literary criticism, this online magazine is one of the better-paying markets for short sf (with medical relevance), according to the SFWA BULLETIN. Good for readers and writers, I'd suggest. Shall have to investigate. -----Original Message----- From: Lori B Pfahler [mailto:Lori_B_Pfahler@ROHMHAAS.COM] Not exactly on topic (but somewhat related) but I found this interesting essay at the HMS Beagle - the BioMedNet Magazine (an excellent e-journal covering biology and medicine). You must "join" to view, but joining is free and I have not been inundated with junk mail. http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/47/booksoft/essay.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:34:32 -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: Leigh Brackett and other things In-Reply-To: <8025678E.002C3020.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:45 AM 6/12/99 , Mike Stanton wrote: >Has anyone seen the film _Wing Commander_? I saw it earlier this year and >felt it was - _Top Gun_ *meets* _Battlestar Galactica_ *meets* _Das Boot_ >*meets* _Captain Horatio Hornblower_. In other words a ripe lot of old >hooey. The film has just opened near where a friend lives and he saw it >yesterday; he was much taken by the "feminist theme" running through the >film. I didn't really notice any; possibly I blinked at the wrong moment. >Did anyone else? I saw it and thought it was terrible for many many reasons. I didn't catch any feminist themes, either. I'd be interested to know what your friend picked up on that I missed. Sophia