From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:36:47 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:48:07 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9906C" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:32:26 +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: Ways of discussing Slow River Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On 13 Jun 99, at 22:04, Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: > 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. Claudia I think you're being much too harsh here. An author attempts to present a character as a living breathing creature, but she has to rely on us, her readers, to fill in the blanks that she necessarily omits by using our innate knowledge of living humans to flesh out the character. The reader of any "work of literature", as you so rightly imply in your next paragraph, isn't just a passive object; he/she has to take an active role and use his/her imagination (within limits) both as an aid to the author and to increase his/her enjoyment. Nicole Griffith has, in analogy, presented us with what amounts to a snapshot of a person and asks us, as the readers, to fill in the details from our own knowledge of living people. For example, we know, even if it isn't mentioned in the text, that Lore must have all the usual physiological functions; her heart must pump blood around her body even though the author doesn't mention it. The author is perfectly entitled to assume that we know these things and thus it's not necessary for her to "bring a character to life" by listing them in detail. Of course the author can only rely on her readers to fill in those "details" for things that everyone has; characteristics specific to the character must be described in as much detail as the story requires or as much as is needed to round out the character. By the same token, we know that Lore must "think" and to bring the character to life we *have* to reconstruct at least some of her thoughts in our mind. Most of them will be trivial - "what am I going to wear today?", "I've got an itch in my foot" and so on; so we simply "accept" these as having occurred and there's no need to imagine them in detail. But others will be profound - "I killed so-and-so with a nail" being just one - and since such thoughts would have a major effect on a living human being, we have to imagine their effect on Lore, otherwise we fail in our duty as readers. And in order for us, the readers, to construct a real, breathing person out of the barebones that the author supplies, we *have* to imagine not only her thoughts but also the emotions which led to the thoughts, just as we have to imagine or at least implicitly accept the physiological processes which keep Lore "alive". Killing a man, for example, would be very traumatic in anyone's life - let alone the life of a young woman from a protected environment. We're entitled, indeed required, to speculate on the effect that the killing would have on her future conduct. Perhaps, in Lore's case, the almost fugue state she's in at the beginning was specifically a result of the mental trauma from killing. Of course here I'm beginning to reach the limit.of what is allowable. In talking about the affair Adler-Norton, you yourself said that we are "entitled to pad out the details, using the guide that [Sir Arthur] Conan Doyle [the author of "A scandal in Bohemia"] has given us provided we don't contradict ... [any "facts" given] ...in the orginal story or go against common sense or history". Clearly the discussion of Lore's emotions on the other list would fall into this category (although I must admit that I haven't actually read that discussion). Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:34:12 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: _Wing Commander_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 14 Jun 99, at 12:34, Sophia Hegner wrote: > 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 On email query he tells me that there were two main reasons: firstly one of the hot-shot pilots was an Afro-Caribbean woman who was a "role model" for young women (his words not mine!) and secondly that the "Wing Commander" (the leader of the fighter pilots) was a strong woman. He felt the "feminism" theme was spoilt because both of the two male heroes were spoiling for a "Tailhook"-type scandal. My friend who's in his early 70s and who was a fighter pilot in Korea, was not impressed with the bombastic nature of the fighter pilots who were as different from *real* British pilots as chalk from cheese. As you say it was a terrible film. Perhaps it was the best they could do with a lousy script, a minute budget, cheesy special effects, an incompetent director and brain-dead actors. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:37:36 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I wonder, before we begin discussion of this work, if there isn't a lot to be said for repeating and slightly expanding a little information I gave in a previous note on Cherryh. A SMALL NOTE: Cherryh was grossly overoptimistic about the rate at which space exploration would expand in this century and early next (she gives "2005-2352" as the period of space exploration leading up to the period in which _Downbelow Station_ takes place). This is not a major problem because if we use European exploration in Africa and the New World after 1400 as a guide, we can just about accommodate Cherryh's projected rate of expansion even if we assume that active manned solar system exploration doesn't restart until 2050.. C J Cherryh has a first-rate, highly detailed website (http://www.cherryh.com) - a must for all Cherryh maniacs. She (and her cohorts) give an excellent introduction to her universe on http://www.cherryh.com/univer.htm and a superb time lime starting at http://www.cherryh.com/chrona1.htm (I printed both out and keep them in my Cherryh file). A couple of excellent programs (ChView and ChDesign) are also available at http://sunjessen24.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~jakobi/meetpoint/. The first lets you display starmaps in 3-D. The second program allows you to model her Merchanter ships, physically and commercially, and this is particularly important if you wish to examine the finer details of her economic projections but unnecessary for the reader whose interests lie elsewhere. I strongly recommend that all Cherryh fans download these programs which are efficient, simple, straight-forward and won't clutter up your hard-drive with .dlls and support files. You will find it valuable to download all the maps (extension *.chv) on the site; they are very small physically but of immense value to the enthusiast. The colonize.chv file is a good one to use to get your bearings. The maps, as Cherryh herself says about the map she puts in _Forty thousand in Gehenna_ (a "difficult", but immensely satisfying book), are deceptive because they are 2-dimensional views of a 3-dimensional space. The "distances" one sees on the map are often unrelated to the true distances between places which are ALWAYS equal to (rarely) or LARGER than (usually) the map distances. The programmers of ChView allow for this by permitting one to change the point of view. By RIGHT clicking on the map and moving the cursor while holding down the button, one can change the POV making it easy to see true distances and relationships. One needs a bit of practice to get it right. You can also add information to or remove it from the star maps, but it's better to copy and rename the maps first (as I found out the hard way). Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:25:40 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 Mike Stanton wrote >In talking about the affair Adler-Norton, you yourself said that we are >"entitled to pad out the details, using the guide that [Sir Arthur] Conan >Doyle [the author of "A scandal in Bohemia"] has given us provided we don't >contradict ... [any "facts" given] >...in the orginal story or go against common sense or history". You've gone outside the limits. The Adler-Norton discussion assumed that A Scandal in Bohemia was a roman-a-clef so I was able to apply the facts of real people's lives and alter them to suit the story and also as part of the disguise. Besides I said in my earlier note to Janice "I think it's pretty futile if the approach isn't used with a conscious knowledge of its own absurdity". You couldn't possible suggest that I didn't have a keen sense of absurdity ... particularly about your own comment on Kaiser Bill. What turned me off is that the discussion of Lore wasn't conducted tongue in cheek, but with all the earnestness that I'd give to the life of a real person. That sort of discussion troubles me for reasons I find difficult to articulate but theyre the same type of reasons that made me turn cold when someone (forget who) on this list suggested we must approach Joanna Russ with "awe and respect" ... as if we have to treat a particular writer's work as if it's divine revelation. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:27:22 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mike Stanton wrote: >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. Can it be infinitely malleable? Suppose for example a writer were to assume that a simple physical fact in her universe is different from that in ours ... let's take the example that Cherryh needed the atomic number of hydrogen to be 4 instead of 1 to make something work in her universe. Surely we would have to reject that as totally unacceptable because it's meaningless. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:10:48 -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: Ways of discussing Slow River: Lyndhurst MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" When people begin substituting art for life, one symptom of which is to castigate an author for having her character do something or having something happen to the character of which the complainant does not approve, we have indeed entered an unfortunate state of affairs (this is distinct from criticizing the author for creating an unbelievable situation, or lazily forcing arbitrary actions on characters). We needn't approach Russ's work with awe and respect; frequently it will earn our (or at least my) respect all by itself. Awe is a bit much, but I do wonder if the person you're quoting wasn't hyperbolically flattering the accomplished but still underappreciated (and apparently underpaid) Ms. Russ, rather than demanding prostration. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:39:56 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Ways of discussing Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm enjoying this discussion but, please, spell my name right: it's Nicola with an "a" not Nicole with an "e". Thanks. Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:31:34 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: Lyndhurst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 15 Jun 99, at 11:10, Todd Mason wrote: >When people begin substituting art for life, >one symptom of which is to castigate an author for having her character do >something or having >something happen to the character of which the complainant does not >approve, we have indeed entered an unfortunate state of affairs (this is >distinct from criticizing the author for creating an unbelievable >situation, or lazily >forcing arbitrary actions on characters). Indeed, irate fans (or at least one irate fan) have even been known to take erring authors prisoner and smash up their legs to force them to rewrite books that offend them . >We needn't approach Russ's work with awe and respect; >frequently it will earn our (or at least my) respect all by itself. Awe is >a bit much, but I do wonder if the person you're quoting wasn't >hyperbolically flattering the accomplished but still underappreciated (and >apparently underpaid) Ms. >Russ, rather than demanding prostration. Judge for yourself : "Men especially could approach/read this book with awe and respect, for it is an open door onto hearfelt, poignant and earnest dialogues on womens concerns as we would discuss them amongst each other". Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:36:44 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 Nicola Griffith wrote: >I'm enjoying this discussion but, please, spell my name right: it's Nicola >with an "a" not Nicole with an "e". Thanks. Nicola In addition to the note from Mike Stanton apologising for us all that I've just forwarded to the list, I like to apologise personally. In front of me is a copy of your book with the name spelt out clearly, but there's none so blind as those who will not see. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:36:05 +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: Ways of discussing Slow River: Lyndhurst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 15 Jun 99, at 11:10, Todd Mason wrote: > ... (and apparently underpaid) Ms. Russ ... Earlier this year I heard a rumour at a Boston bookshop that Ms Russ was in some sort of financial trouble and that a benefit, appeal or whatever was to be organized for her. Evidently she was/is suffering from an (unspecified) disease of the nervous system which prevents her from writing and that her resources were extremely limited. Revenue from her previous writing was said to be drying up and that "What we are fighting for..." had yet to break even. The rumour I heard specifically said she could only write standing up which is why I dismissed it. Is this what your cryptic hint refers to? Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:41:31 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Ways of discussing Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In addition to the note from Mike Stanton apologising for us all that I've > just forwarded to the list, I like to apologise personally. You are forgiven . Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:47:52 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 15 Jun 99, at 13:39, Nicola Griffith wrote: >I'm enjoying this discussion but, please, spell >my name right: it's Nicola with an "a" not >Nicole with an "e". Thanks. Nicola There's nothing more insulting than to spell someone's name wrongly. Unfortunately at the start of our off-list discussion of _Slow River_, *I* carelessly misspelt your name; unfortunately Claudia and the rest of the group just picked it up. So - as the real guilty party - I'd like to apologise for all of us. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia If you approve please forward this to the list Mike Michael Stanton Hartley, Stanton Associates ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:50:41 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Nicola Griffith Subject: Re: Ways of discussing Slow River MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > So - as the real guilty party - I'd like to > apologise for all of us. You're forgiven, too . Nicola Nicola Griffith http://www.sff.net/people/Nicola ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:51:40 -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: Ways of discussing Slow River: Lyndhurst MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" "could" is quite a bit different from "must", which is the word you used when you brought it back up a few posts ago. -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Claudia Lyndhurst [mailto:clyndhurst@HOTMAIL.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 2:32 PM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Ways of discussing Slow River: Lyndhurst > Judge for yourself : "Men especially could approach/read this > book with awe > and respect, for it is an open door onto hearfelt, poignant > and earnest > dialogues on womens concerns as we would discuss them amongst > each other". ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:27:41 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Joanna Russ's health: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] On 15 Jun 99, at 11:10, Todd Mason wrote: > ... (and apparently underpaid) Ms. Russ ... Earlier this year I heard a rumour at a Boston bookshop that Ms Russ was in some sort of financial trouble and that a benefit, appeal or whatever was to be organized for her. Evidently she was/is suffering from an (unspecified) disease of the nervous system which prevents her from writing and that her resources were extremely limited. Revenue from her previous writing was said to be drying up and that "What we are fighting for..." had yet to break even. The rumour I heard specifically said she could only write standing up which is why I dismissed it. Is this what your cryptic hint refers to? +Perhaps it was in her interview in Charles Platt's DREAM MAKERS II that she pointed out that she had received no more than $3000 for an advance for any, or any but one (and if the latter, probably THE FEMALE MAN at Bantam), of her books. That interview was conducted some fifteen years ago, but I wonder how much more she has seen from a couple of short story collections, a couple of essay collections, and WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? since. As I understand it, she has a back problem (and has had for the better part of her adult life?) that sometimes is so bad she can only write standing up. She has been an academic for most of her adult life, perhaps not solely to pay the bills, but obviously the writing, even for a writer as good and influential as she, was not going to do the job alone. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:18:47 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: book discussion proposals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov centered on a universe with different physical conditions, and has a fascinating take on sexuality.... Frances On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:27:22 CEST Claudia Lyndhurst writes: > >Can it be infinitely malleable? Suppose for example a writer were to >assume >that a simple physical fact in her universe is different from that in >ours >... let's take the example that Cherryh needed the atomic number of >hydrogen >to be 4 instead of 1 to make something work in her universe. Surely we >would >have to reject that as totally unacceptable because it's meaningless. > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:29:31 +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: Joanna Russ's health: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 15 Jun 99, at 15:27, Todd Mason wrote: > +Perhaps it was in her interview in Charles Platt's DREAM MAKERS II that > +she > pointed out that she had received no more than $3000 for an advance for > any, or any but one (and if the latter, probably THE FEMALE MAN at > Bantam), of her books. That interview was conducted some fifteen years > ago, but I wonder how much more she has seen from a couple of short story > collections, a couple of essay collections, and WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? > since. As I understand it, she has a back problem (and has had for the > better part of her adult life?) that sometimes is so bad she can only > write standing up. She has been an academic for most of her adult life, > perhaps not solely to pay the bills, but obviously the writing, even for a > writer as good and influential as she, was not going to do the job alone. An offlist correspondent tells me that she has had "Chronic Fatigue Immune Deficiency Syndrome" since about 1986 or 1987 and "chronic back pain" according to several Internet biographies. After 1990, she's evidently been unable to lecture and much of her time until 1997 was devoted to the slow and (physically) painful writing of "What we are fighting for..." "What...", which will probably be her last major work, isn't of the stuff that makes best sellers (I must confess that the small type, footnotes and "Leftovers" made me blench when I first picked it up) and it seems to have been largely neglected by critics in the popular press. *Possibly unreliable gossip* in bookshops I've visited over the last 5 months indicates that sales of "What..." have been even worse that the not very sanguine expectations booksellers had of it. Sales to younger women in particular have, I understand, been poor. All of which must make her financial position less than A+++. It's interesting here to compare the "success" of her work with that of Germaine Greer's _The Whole Woman_. The advance for Greer's book evidently set records because its publisher no doubt expected sales to rival or exceed those of _The Female Eunuch_. If the figure I heard was correct the advance was possibly ten times greater that the sum of all advances Russ received through out her working life. Many critics have savaged _The Whole Woman_ (who can forget the "'The Whole Woman' is a castrated book" in Michiko Kakutani's savage NYT review?). Sales in Britain have evidently been about half those the publisher expected but I'd be surprised if the *real* value of author royalties for this one book wasn't several times greater than Russ has earned in her entire life. The real reason for this long diatribe (other than the fact that I'm waiting for a plane) is your word "influential". I don't doubt that Russ was influential in the past (though in view of her *relatively* limited sales I doubt whether it's as large as you imply except among academics) but can we really say that she is influential now? We know how and through what Greer has influenced people, but I'm beginning to question that an author who's been almost "dormant" and whose sales were never more than a small fraction of _The Female Eunuch_'s can be that influential. I mean, how or through what does Russ' influence affect people? Through her books - most of which are out-of-print? Through her lectures - when she's been "retired" or "semi-retired" for 9-10 years? Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:40:48 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 15 Jun 99, at 18:18, Frances Green wrote: >"The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov centered on a universe with >different physical conditions, and has a fascinating take on >sexuality.... Frances I think that's perfectly acceptable because it's a different *universe*. There's presumably no reason why a different (that is, one that's not a extended or altered vesion of this one) universe shouldn't have different rules. but I was thinking about this one, about how far can an author go in altering the "rules" of the universe, psychology, social dynamics or even common sense before it gets to be too much. All or nearly all space opera breaks, evades or gets round the "nothing faster than light" rule (otherwise there'd be no space opera) but very few - certainly of those written today - break, say, Newton's Third Law. I found The Gods Themselves a bit dull. The middle section (The actual Gods) is good, but I thought the first and last sections were much poorer. Asimov's handling of sex in The Gods Themselves section is very good but it was spoiled for me by the rather schoolboyish delight in free sex and Serena(? or Selena? or whoever)'s breasts flopping about in the low Lunar gravity in the third. It may seem heretical but I 've never really thought of Asimov as a great science fiction writer possibly I only came to his work in the mid 1980s after reading writers like Cherryh, Benford and Brin and his early stuff seemed terribly dated. His Foundation series for example has for some reason always semed overblown to me. On the other hand, his mystery stories especially his novel, A Whiff of Death, were pretty good. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:44:58 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: Lyndhurst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >Indeed, irate fans (or at least one irate fan) have even been known to >take erring authors prisoner and smash up their legs to force them to >rewrite books that offend them . I've had a note complaining of my "callousness" about a kidnapped author. In case anyone else is confused, my joke was a reference to Stephen King's book, Misery or alternatively the film based on the book starring Kathy Bates and James Caan. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:06:47 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: R: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's health: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit well, I think ideas have a way of spreading. That's why sometimes governments go to so much trouble against them. And beauty too works its way . It's not us who judge texts: they judge us, and one should take them seriously and warily, not with lightness or complacency. Besides, today's winners may lose tomorrow (at the social-political level, I mean), you can never say. Giacomo Conserva -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Mike Stanton A: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Data: mercoledì 16 giugno 1999 9.46 Oggetto: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's health: Stanton >The real reason for this long diatribe (other than the fact that I'm >waiting for a plane) is your word "influential". I don't doubt that Russ >was influential in the past (though in view of her *relatively* limited >sales I doubt whether it's as large as you imply except among academics) >but can we really say that she is influential now? We know how and through >what Greer has influenced people, but I'm beginning to question that an >author who's been almost "dormant" and whose sales were never more than a >small fraction of _The Female Eunuch_'s can be that influential. I mean, >how or through what does Russ' influence affect people? Through her books >- most of which are out-of-print? Through her lectures - when she's been >"retired" or "semi-retired" for 9-10 years? > > >Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:44:39 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, Mike, just because she hasn't made the bucks doesn't mean she hasn't been read by other writers and plenty of readers along with the academics. For example, even in constant dollars she's probably made more than Leigh Brackett did from sf writing (excluding the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK first draft), but this says nothing about the influence of either the most elegant of the early straightforward space-opera writers (who also would write elegant post-apocalypse novels such as THE LONG TOMORROW), nor of the most explicitly feminist of the SF writers to come of age in the '60s. Greer's influence, these days at least, is (to descend to cliche) a mile wide and an inch deep, and essentially only felt in the memories of those who read THE FEMALE EUNUCH, and those few who do now; her subsequent books have been mainly of interest to antifeminists, and apparently not much to them. Whereas most of the feminist writers in SF will cite Russ's example and at least some of her work as major inspiration. And simply because she hasn't received major advances doesn't mean her work isn't read...being published by Ace in 1970 was not going to make anyone a hell of a lot of money, even if a lot of copies were distributed. The fact that her FEMALE MAN has reached a heterogenous audience, and probably sells better now than THE FEMALE EUNUCH, is a good sign for her influence continuing. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] The real reason for this long diatribe (other than the fact that I'm waiting for a plane) is your word "influential". I don't doubt that Russ was influential in the past (though in view of her *relatively* limited sales I doubt whether it's as large as you imply except among academics) but can we really say that she is influential now? We know how and through what Greer has influenced people, but I'm beginning to question that an author who's been almost "dormant" and whose sales were never more than a small fraction of _The Female Eunuch_'s can be that influential. I mean, how or through what does Russ' influence affect people? Through her books - most of which are out-of-print? Through her lectures - when she's been "retired" or "semi-retired" for 9-10 years? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:28:56 +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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 16 Jun 99, at 11:44, Todd Mason wrote: > Greer's influence, these days at least, is (to > descend to cliche) a mile wide and an inch deep, > and essentially only felt in the memories of those > who read THE FEMALE EUNUCH, and those > few who do now; her subsequent books have been > mainly of interest to antifeminists, and > apparently not much to them. A person can be influential only if people know about her. My note made no mention of influence on a particular group (eg feminist sf writers) because Greer is not a sf writer; from your own description, Russ is not an *active* sf writer nor, if I understand you correctly, has she been one for many years. Of course within a specific group devoted to a purpose for which Russ' work would have great application, knowledge of her writings will continue to be influential because her devotees will seek it out. The difference between her and Greer is the breadth of readership. Anecdotal evidence is dubious, but I myself had never heard of Russ 12 months ago but I certainly knew of Greer's work and I'm certain that this would be the case with most people of my age or younger. The list of better-known feminist writers must be pretty near endless. I realise that we're at a parting of the ways here, but to me "influence" is relatively simply measured in several ways, the easiest of which are probably citation analysis and public media analysis. Greer, worthy or not, is cited (as _The Female eunuch_) far more often that all of Russ' work; indeed I'd be surprised if more than a small proportion of modern books on feminism etc omitted her. Her name is far more widely known; a search through Dialog (restricting queries to the last 2 years) and several newspaper databases (over the last year only), produced over 3000 references to Greer (over 800 in the last 4 months) and 1 to Russ. A person can be influential generally only if she is known generally. Take an example: I've just run a search on the stuff I collected last year when the famous _Time_ "article" imbroglio was on the go. Over 60 famous and semi-famous feminists were mentioned in one article or another; Russ was not one of them. What proportion of the 65% (ex the _Time_ series) of women who describe themselves as "feminists" have heard of Russ? How influential could it be especially when you consider that _The female man_ was published before most of them were born. Of course, the same could be said of _The Female Eunuch_ except that over the years Greer's published extensively in the academic and popular press and had large amounts of publicity from both that and her relentless self-promotion. > Whereas most of the feminist writers in SF will > cite Russ's example and at least some of her > work as major inspiration. And simply because > she hasn't received major advances doesn't mean > her work isn't read...being published by Ace > in 1970 was not going to make anyone a hell > of a lot of money, even if a lot of copies were > distributed. The fact that her FEMALE MAN has > reached a heterogenous audience, and probably sells > better now than THE FEMALE EUNUCH, is a good sign > for her influence continuing. It's impossible for us to check these figures, but I'd be very surprised if The Female Man_ outsells _The Female Eunuch_ considering the fact that the target market for the latter is several orders of magnitude greater than the former and that the sheer publicity _The Female Eunuch_ has received is staggering. The recent publication of _The Whole Woman_ was said (admittedly in the trade mag _European Books_ to have more than quintupled sales of _... Eunuch_). Whatever one says about Greer, Camille Paglia's note on her in the _NYT_ shows that her early work was both fresh and exciting. And, moreover, highly influential. This is not a comparison between writers. I'm not able to judge Russ' non-fiction work because all I've read carefully in full is _What we..._ although I've browsed through others. It's simply questioning something we've all taken for granted as conventional wisdom, but which I think now needs to be re-looked at. Other people have discussed Asimov on this list. He's both dead and had long periods when he didn't publish any sf, but one can go into any bookstore now and buy his work. I visited 3 large bookstores on Friday, saw Asimov in every one and Russ in none - that's influential. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:21:46 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Popular is not the same as influential, Mike. Were you deeply into science fiction when you'd never heard of Russ, who may not have published much fiction in the last decade but was widely published beforehand? Did you look in the "women's studies" section or its equivalent, wherein most books by the Feminist Press (current publishers of THE FEMALE MAN) are likely to be found, regardless of content? I must admit I don't know if EUNUCH was or is in print in the US, and if it is whether that was connected to the new book; I knew the Feminist Press edition of MAN continues to sell slowly but steadily despite a remarkably amateurish package. When I called Russ influential, I meant within the SF and to some extent within the feminist community, but no, she's not going to be as widely known as Greer or Gloria Steinem, even if (perhaps because) she is usually more thoughtful, insightful, and less inclined to received wisdom. Many of our influential writers have not been popular beyond a coterie following at first, too often until after they're dead: Melville's later works come to mind, Philip Dick, Lovecraft, among others. Also, THE FEMALE MAN in its Bantam edition was not a bestseller but was certainly a goodseller, saw several Bantam editions and multiple printings of those editions. We're people, Mike, and we know about her, and we're hardly alone. Meanwhile, to cast about, Thomas Scortia had a number of legitimate bestsellers in tandem with Frank Robinson, and is probably little-remembered outside the SF community, unfortunately. I never said she was inactive as a writer, though I think you have; I repeated what I'd been informed of her difficulty in writing unless she was standing, her back pain being apparently least when in that position. To have quintupled European sales of EUNUCH, however, begs the question of how good were they before, in these decades since its initial importance? -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 2:29 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton On 16 Jun 99, at 11:44, Todd Mason wrote: > Greer's influence, these days at least, is (to > descend to cliche) a mile wide and an inch deep, > and essentially only felt in the memories of those > who read THE FEMALE EUNUCH, and those > few who do now; her subsequent books have been > mainly of interest to antifeminists, and > apparently not much to them. A person can be influential only if people know about her. My note made no mention of influence on a particular group (eg feminist sf writers) because Greer is not a sf writer; from your own description, Russ is not an *active* sf writer nor, if I understand you correctly, has she been one for many years. Of course within a specific group devoted to a purpose for which Russ' work would have great application, knowledge of her writings will continue to be influential because her devotees will seek it out. The difference between her and Greer is the breadth of readership. Anecdotal evidence is dubious, but I myself had never heard of Russ 12 months ago but I certainly knew of Greer's work and I'm certain that this would be the case with most people of my age or younger. The list of better-known feminist writers must be pretty near endless. I realise that we're at a parting of the ways here, but to me "influence" is relatively simply measured in several ways, the easiest of which are probably citation analysis and public media analysis. Greer, worthy or not, is cited (as _The Female eunuch_) far more often that all of Russ' work; indeed I'd be surprised if more than a small proportion of modern books on feminism etc omitted her. Her name is far more widely known; a search through Dialog (restricting queries to the last 2 years) and several newspaper databases (over the last year only), produced over 3000 references to Greer (over 800 in the last 4 months) and 1 to Russ. A person can be influential generally only if she is known generally. Take an example: I've just run a search on the stuff I collected last year when the famous _Time_ "article" imbroglio was on the go. Over 60 famous and semi-famous feminists were mentioned in one article or another; Russ was not one of them. What proportion of the 65% (ex the _Time_ series) of women who describe themselves as "feminists" have heard of Russ? How influential could it be especially when you consider that _The female man_ was published before most of them were born. Of course, the same could be said of _The Female Eunuch_ except that over the years Greer's published extensively in the academic and popular press and had large amounts of publicity from both that and her relentless self-promotion. > Whereas most of the feminist writers in SF will > cite Russ's example and at least some of her > work as major inspiration. And simply because > she hasn't received major advances doesn't mean > her work isn't read...being published by Ace > in 1970 was not going to make anyone a hell > of a lot of money, even if a lot of copies were > distributed. The fact that her FEMALE MAN has > reached a heterogenous audience, and probably sells > better now than THE FEMALE EUNUCH, is a good sign > for her influence continuing. It's impossible for us to check these figures, but I'd be very surprised if The Female Man_ outsells _The Female Eunuch_ considering the fact that the target market for the latter is several orders of magnitude greater than the former and that the sheer publicity _The Female Eunuch_ has received is staggering. The recent publication of _The Whole Woman_ was said (admittedly in the trade mag _European Books_ to have more than quintupled sales of _... Eunuch_). Whatever one says about Greer, Camille Paglia's note on her in the _NYT_ shows that her early work was both fresh and exciting. And, moreover, highly influential. This is not a comparison between writers. I'm not able to judge Russ' non-fiction work because all I've read carefully in full is _What we..._ although I've browsed through others. It's simply questioning something we've all taken for granted as conventional wisdom, but which I think now needs to be re-looked at. Other people have discussed Asimov on this list. He's both dead and had long periods when he didn't publish any sf, but one can go into any bookstore now and buy his work. I visited 3 large bookstores on Friday, saw Asimov in every one and Russ in none - that's influential. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:35:01 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Warner Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Mike Stanton wrote: > On 16 Jun 99, at 11:44, Todd Mason wrote: > > > Greer's influence, these days at least, is (to > > descend to cliche) a mile wide and an inch deep, > > and essentially only felt in the memories of those > > who read THE FEMALE EUNUCH, and those > > few who do now; her subsequent books have been > > mainly of interest to antifeminists, and > > apparently not much to them. > > A person can be influential only if people know > about her. > > My note made no mention of influence on a particular > group (eg feminist sf > writers) because Greer is not a sf writer; from your > own description, Russ > is not an *active* sf writer nor, if I understand > you correctly, has she > been one for many years. Of course within a specific > group devoted to a > purpose for which Russ' work would have great > application, knowledge of her > writings will continue to be influential because her > devotees will seek it > out. The difference between her and Greer is the > breadth of readership. > Anecdotal evidence is dubious, but I myself had > never heard of Russ 12 > months ago but I certainly knew of Greer's work and > Just because you never heard of her before 12 months ago does not mean she is not an extremly influential and foundational writer for anyone going into either the field of feminist studies or contemporary feminist science fiction. I am almost positive that I am much younger than you, sir, and have read most of her works. If you are seriously interested in either of those fields, her name will come up and should be taken very seriously. Just because you can look up Greer's name as cited in articles does not mean she is profoundly affecting feminist studies in a way that will continue to generate debate and growth. People cite Jerry Springer too, that doesn't mean he has anything relevant to say about anything. Have you read Russ's "How to Supress Women's Writing"? I would recomend it to you in particular. Yeah, well, she didn't write very much, did she? Michelle Warner I'm certain that this > would be the case with most people of my age or > younger. The list of > better-known feminist writers must be pretty near > endless. > > I realise that we're at a parting of the ways here, > but to me "influence" > is relatively simply measured in several ways, the > easiest of which are > probably citation analysis and public media > analysis. Greer, worthy or not, > is cited (as _The Female eunuch_) far more often > that all of Russ' work; > indeed I'd be surprised if more than a small > proportion of modern books on > feminism etc omitted her. Her name is far more > widely known; a search > through Dialog (restricting queries to the last 2 > years) and several > newspaper databases (over the last year only), > produced over 3000 > references to Greer (over 800 in the last 4 months) > and 1 to Russ. > > A person can be influential generally only if she is > known generally. Take > an example: I've just run a search on the stuff I > collected last year when > the famous _Time_ "article" imbroglio was on the go. > Over 60 famous and > semi-famous feminists were mentioned in one article > or another; Russ was > not one of them. What proportion of the 65% (ex the > _Time_ series) of women > who describe themselves as "feminists" have heard of > Russ? How influential > could it be especially when you consider that _The > female man_ was > published before most of them were born. Of course, > the same could be said > of _The Female Eunuch_ except that over the years > Greer's published > extensively in the academic and popular press and > had large amounts of > publicity from both that and her relentless > self-promotion. > > > Whereas most of the feminist writers in SF will > > cite Russ's example and at least some of her > > work as major inspiration. And simply because > > she hasn't received major advances doesn't mean > > her work isn't read...being published by Ace > > in 1970 was not going to make anyone a hell > > of a lot of money, even if a lot of copies were > > distributed. The fact that her FEMALE MAN has > > reached a heterogenous audience, and probably > sells > > better now than THE FEMALE EUNUCH, is a good sign > > for her influence continuing. > > It's impossible for us to check these figures, but > I'd be very surprised if > The Female Man_ outsells _The Female Eunuch_ > considering the fact that the > target market for the latter is several orders of > magnitude greater than > the former and that the sheer publicity _The Female > Eunuch_ has received is > staggering. The recent publication of _The Whole > Woman_ was said > (admittedly in the trade mag _European Books_ to > have more than quintupled > sales of _... Eunuch_). > > Whatever one says about Greer, Camille Paglia's note > on her in the _NYT_ > shows that her early work was both fresh and > exciting. And, moreover, > highly influential. > > This is not a comparison between writers. I'm not > able to judge Russ' > non-fiction work because all I've read carefully in > full is _What we..._ > although I've browsed through others. It's simply > questioning something > we've all taken for granted as conventional wisdom, > but which I think now > needs to be re-looked at. Other people have > discussed Asimov on this list. > He's both dead and had long periods when he didn't > publish any sf, but one > can go into any bookstore now and buy his work. I > visited 3 large > bookstores on Friday, saw Asimov in every one and > Russ in none - that's > influential. > > > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) > === Ah, Lesbians. Yummmy. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:04:44 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hmmmm... Russ's influence? The feminine is a deep stream underground. Only think -- Hildegard von Bingen's work, written in the 12th Century, won a Grammy a few years ago. lightly, lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:39:56 -0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jude McLaughlin Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's health: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Todd Mason said on 6/15/99 8:26 PM: >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] >On 15 Jun 99, at 11:10, Todd Mason wrote: > >> ... (and apparently underpaid) Ms. Russ ... > >Earlier this year I heard a rumour at a Boston bookshop that Ms Russ was in >some sort of financial trouble and that a benefit, appeal or whatever was >to be organized for her. Evidently she was/is suffering from an >(unspecified) disease of the nervous system which prevents her from writing >and that her resources were extremely limited. According to a biography of Ms. Russ I found online some time ago, she suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which is why she left full-time academia and her writing has dwindled. Jude ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:25:21 +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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 16 Jun 99, at 13:35, Michelle Warner wrote: > Just because you never heard of her before 12 months > ago does not mean she is not an extremly influential > and foundational writer for anyone going into either > the field of feminist studies or contemporary feminist > science fiction. Michelle I think, once again, we've all got on to the wrong track. My comments were directed at the generality of people, rather than the specificities of the foundational writers of feminist sf. My comments on Greer were interesting but deceptive and misleading in that I encouraged this drift off the subject onto the general field of feminism which was NOT my intention. My intention was a financial analysis (which, I should point out, is what I do for a living) and my comparison of _What we are fighting for_ and _The Whole Woman_ was an attempt to compare "like with like" - major works on equivalent subjects by two writers of similar ages. My comments on influence were directed, again at the generality of people because that is certainly what Greer's target market was (as her interview in the _Guardian_ in late April shows). I think similar sentiments are expressed in the preamble to _What..._ although I don't have a copy available and it's been many months since I read the full book. > I am almost positive that I am much > younger than you, sir, and have read most of her > works. If you are seriously interested in either of > those fields, her name will come up and should be > taken very seriously. I'm actually interested in the lighter side of feminist sf (which I believe to be the most popular - in the sense of most widely sold - kind) and my interests in this instance lie in tracing any influences on authors of these types. I've only been reading femsf for about 10 months and I wouldn't normally have read _What we are fighting for..._ but I had a theory on Russ' intentions in writing _The female man_ and wanted to confirm them so I could discuss the book during the BDG session last year. It's unlikely, since I'm gradually moving into the wider field of popular sf, that I'll read any more of Russ' work. > Just because you can look up > Greer's name as cited in articles does not mean she is > profoundly affecting feminist studies in a way that > will continue to generate debate and growth. Citation analysis and media analysis are, though, very useful techniques because they tell one, objectively, what academics and ordinary people (for example) are writing and talking about respectively. They do not, I agree, say anything about "influence" directly, but as I've said before, an author who no one knows about (and where do ordinary people like me learn about authors except through the media) can have at best limited influence. > People > cite Jerry Springer too, that doesn't mean he has > anything relevant to say about anything. Have you > read Russ's "How to Supress Women's Writing"? I would > recomend it to you in particular. Yeah, well, she > didn't write very much, did she? If you compare her sf output to, say, Cherryh or MZB, no she didn't write that much (what, 7 shortish novels, 5 s/story collections - the overwhelming proportion prior to 1980 - and 4 non-fictions). If you compare the availability of her books in print to those two, the ratio is even worse. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:34:48 -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: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] I'm actually interested in the lighter side of feminist sf (which I believe to be the most popular - in the sense of most widely sold - kind) and my interests in this instance lie in tracing any influences on authors of these types. --Humorous feminist sf? THE FEMALE MAN is pretty damned funny, and so are parts of the Alyx stories and much else by Russ. Of course, the Most popular feminist SF would be Marge Piercy, Margaret Atwood, and Ursula K. LeGuin's. Even Kathy Acker's probably rivals C J Cherryh's for sales. I've only been reading femsf for about 10 months and I wouldn't normally have read _What we are fighting for..._ but I had a theory on Russ' intentions in writing _The female man_ and wanted to confirm them so I could discuss the book during the BDG session last year. It's unlikely, since I'm gradually moving into the wider field of popular sf, that I'll read any more of Russ' work. --So you were avoiding all feminist sf before this time? Seems like a tricky bit of filtering. Though perhaps not as difficult as profeminists might wish. > Just because you can look up > Greer's name as cited in articles does not mean she is > profoundly affecting feminist studies in a way that > will continue to generate debate and growth. Citation analysis and media analysis are, though, very useful techniques because they tell one, objectively, what academics and ordinary people (for example) are writing and talking about respectively. --That depends on which databases you are consulting. Are sf fans ordinary people? Are regular readers of SF? Anyone who has read AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS is familiar with at least one Russ story...and this is not an obscure anthology, even if it is op in the US at the moment. They do not, I agree, say anything about "influence" directly, but as I've said before, an author who no one knows about (and where do ordinary people like me learn about authors except through the media) can have at best limited influence. --"ordinary people" (which I'm taking to mean nonacademics and nonwriters generally) don't really have access to most media. Word of mouth and our present medium are the major demotic accesses, and then only to small audiences. > People > cite Jerry Springer too, that doesn't mean he has > anything relevant to say about anything. Have you > read Russ's "How to Supress Women's Writing"? I would > recomend it to you in particular. Yeah, well, she > didn't write very much, did she? If you compare her sf output to, say, Cherryh or MZB, no she didn't write that much (what, 7 shortish novels, 5 s/story collections - the overwhelming proportion prior to 1980 - and 4 non-fictions). If you compare the availability of her books in print to those two, the ratio is even worse. --I think you missed part of her point. HOW was about the processes which, obviously, discourage women from writing challenging work. Cherryh and Bradley write work which tends to be less directly challenging. I don't like it as well, either, but that's neither here nor there. With one (two? FEMALE MAN and ?ON STRIKE AGAINST GOD?) of those novels, three of four nonfiction books I'm aware of, and probably at least one of the story collections in print in the US (though possibly none) this is probably about as high a percentage of her total output as Bradley's in print, if not better. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:45:13 +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: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 17 Jun 99, at 10:34, Todd Mason wrote: > --Humorous feminist sf? THE FEMALE MAN is pretty damned > funny, and so are parts of the Alyx stories and much else by > Russ. Of course, the Most popular feminist SF would be Marge > Piercy, Margaret Atwood, and Ursula K. LeGuin's. Even Kathy > Acker's probably rivals C J Cherryh's for sales. We obviously have VERY different ideas on what constitutes (a) humour and (b) light. Perhaps I should have said space opera (although that's too confining a description). I've read 1 book each of the first 2 (_Woman on the edge of time_ and _The Handmaid's tale_ respectively), 3 of LeGuin's and I've been trying to read _Empire of the Senseless_ for months. I'd consider none of them either light or humorous rather I'd suggest they were tedious to *pleasure seeking readers* like myself. I can't possibly accept your estimate of sales. If you go to 5-10 of the larger US bookstores and count the number of available books by each author (a crude but often surprisingly accurate way of estimating sales), I'd be exceedingly surprised if you arrived at higher figures for Marge Piercy than C J Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold (the *real* best selling feminist author) or Anne Mcaffrey. > --So you were avoiding all feminist sf before this > time? Seems like a tricky bit of filtering. Though > perhaps not as difficult as profeminists > might wish. Not really, it simply reflects my tastes for "light" literature and to the wealth of competing "light" material available in other genres. My real vice is crime / thrillers / mysteries etc. Upto last July I probably hadn't read 200 sf books in 20 years of desultorily reading sf. Besides how would I have known that XYZ was a feminist author? My copies of _The female man_, Saxton's _Queen of the States_, Elgin's _Native tongue_, Gilman's _Herland_ and Scott's _Passing for human_, all books by impeccable, well-known, feminists, do not have a single suggestion anywhere on the covers that they are written by feminists. In my unregenerate days, I'd have just read the notes on the back covers and hastily put the book down - not because it was feminist but because it would be completely at odds with my usual reading. For example, what would I or any other "space opera" buff think of a book described as follows: "[it] is about Magdalen, a young woman who is on her own planet, out to lunch and on her own trip. She moves through time and space, from a private mental hospital to an alien space ship where she is interrogated about human behaviour and the function of sex" (Quote from the blurb on the cover of _Queen of the states_). Like almost every sf or crime buff I know, I don't read about authors, I just read their books. Let me be honest: if you'd asked me to name ONE feminist sf/f author on 20 July 1998, I wouldn't have been able to - and that was the day after I'd read my first Cherryh! In fact, although I've read many hundreds of crime etc novels and I'm sure that there are feminist crime etc writers, I wouldn't be able to name one of them (unless Nicola Griffith fits in here). > --That depends on which databases you are consulting. > Are sf fans ordinary people? Are regular readers of SF? > Anyone who has read AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS is > familiar with at least one Russ story...and this is > not an obscure anthology, even if it is op in the US at the moment. I mentioned newspaper databases which (I didn't mention this) included a monstrous selection of US and European papers. And I wasn't talking about sf fans. I specifically said "ordinary" people who would include only a minority of sf fans (because these form a minority of readers who in turn form a minority of ordinary people). _Again dangerous visions_ was published, what, about 1969-70 although my own British version was published in 1971. Even aside from the fact that most sf/f readers wouldn't have been born then, I question whether one story in a 30 year old book is likely to have been significantly influential. > --"ordinary people" (which I'm taking to mean > nonacademics and nonwriters generally) don't really > have access to most media. Word of mouth and our > present medium are the major demotic accesses, and > then only to small audiences. My original note said "public media analysis". "Ordinary people" *do* have access to all public media - that's why it's called public! "public media" includes - but is not limited to - books, magazines, newspapers, TV and radio. I think the companies who spend massive sums of money advertising in the "public media" would be dismayed if they thought that only "small audiences" had access to their messages. > --I think you missed part of her point.HOW was about > the processes which, obviously, discourage women from > writing challenging work. Cherryh and Bradley write > work which tends to be less directly challenging. I wasn't talking about factors like this. I was simply discussing the relationship between "influence" and "ordinary people's" knowledge of a writer. I'm not sure how you fit this "discouragement" concept into the discussion. I've never denied that Cherryh or Bradley write less "challenging" work than Russ - which is why I haven't made the effort to read any more Russ and why I've made/am making complete collections of the others' work. > I don't like it as well, either, but that's neither > here nor there. With one (two? FEMALE MAN and ?ON > STRIKE AGAINST GOD?) of those novels, three of four > nonfiction books I'm aware of, and probably at least > one of the story collections in print in the US > (though possibly none) this is probably > about as high a percentage of her total output as > Bradley's in print, if not better. Unless the *sales* of Russ' books are numerically close to those for Bradley's you're simply confirming what I said. "Percentage of books in print" is meaningless in this context; what is being discussed is "recognition by ordinary people" which is clearly proportional to the number of "ordinary people that have seen / bought etc an author's books". Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:23:43 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed I think Joanna Russ has a reputation as a "difficult writer" and maybe one as a "difficult person", too. She has had health problems and doesn't seem to get around much in the SF world anymore. And her latest book was, if I understand properly (not having read it yet), a work of political theory. So it's not a real shock that she has faded from view a lot. I think that if she wrote a chatty, sexy memoir about her life and loves (_On Strike against God_ is not what I'm thinking of, more something like _The Motion of Light in Water_), or if she wrote a big, swashbuckling, fantasy adventure (working title: _Alix, Queen of the Pirates_) she would be able to sell it and get a decent promotional budget. I don't expect to see either of those books anytime soon. On the other hand, she seems very influential in the important subgenre of feminist SF: most SF writers who like to play with gender have read her stuff and some even make their little homages (like Nicola Griffith in _Ammonite_) -- and that includes writers like Brin and Sterling. And at least two of her stories ("Souls" and "When it changed") will live forever, I think. Finally, on the subject of popularity and influence: I am put in mind of the articles I've read recently about Betty Friedan, and how she was supplanted as the spokesperson of US feminism by the user-friendly, photogenic Gloria Steinem. I don't know who the Gloria Steinem of feminist SF is; maybe Ursula K. LeGuin??? Danny _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:27:45 -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: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] I can't possibly accept your estimate of sales. If you go to 5-10 of the larger US bookstores and count the number of available books by each author (a crude but often surprisingly accurate way of estimating sales) ___and it's misleading, because it would probably tell you that Louis L'Amour is the best-selling writer in the store; however, John Grisham and a few other less prolific authors have something to say about that. Atwood has sold more books than Bujold, certainly. Let me be honest: if you'd asked me to name ONE feminist sf/f author on 20 July 1998, I wouldn't have been able to - and that was the day after I'd read my first Cherryh! In fact, although I've read many hundreds of crime etc novels and I'm sure that there are feminist crime etc writers, I wouldn't be able to name one of them (unless Nicola Griffith fits in here). ---It wouldn't occur to you that those who address feminist concerns, such as Marcia Muller or Sara Paretsky, would be feminists? > --That depends on which databases you are consulting. > Are sf fans ordinary people? Are regular readers of SF? > Anyone who has read AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS is > familiar with at least one Russ story...and this is > not an obscure anthology, even if it is op in the US at the moment. I mentioned newspaper databases which (I didn't mention this) included a monstrous selection of US and European papers. ---However, newspaper reviews are not among the most important sources of literary advice either for casual readers (word of mouth/bestseller lists) or heavy readers (specialized publications) in my experience. Not completely without effect, but way down the list. And I wasn't talking about sf fans. I specifically said "ordinary" people who would include only a minority of sf fans (because these form a minority of readers who in turn form a minority of ordinary people). _Again dangerous visions_ was published, what, about 1969-70 although my own British version was published in 1971. --1971. Even aside from the fact that most sf/f readers wouldn't have been born then, --This is as incorrect as it is irrelevant (SF readers are graying). Why have you maintained that no one reads literature published in the past? Few of those M Z Bradleys (at least the non-anthologies) you have referred to are less than a decade old. Ditto for a number of Cherryh's. I question whether one story in a 30 year old book is likely to have been significantly influential. ---A thirty-year old book that has been in print for most of those decades, and has a certain hipness cachet (deserved or not) that has kept it being read by many more than might read comparable anthologies. > --"ordinary people" (which I'm taking to mean > nonacademics and nonwriters generally) don't really > have access to most media. Word of mouth and our > present medium are the major demotic accesses, and > then only to small audiences. My original note said "public media analysis". "Ordinary people" *do* have access to all public media - that's why it's called public! --I misunderstood you--I thought you were suggesting "ordinary people" were expressing themselves about the books in those media, rather than seeing ads. > I don't like it as well, either, but that's neither > here nor there. With one (two? FEMALE MAN and ?ON > STRIKE AGAINST GOD?) of those novels, three of four > nonfiction books I'm aware of, and probably at least > one of the story collections in print in the US > (though possibly none) this is probably > about as high a percentage of her total output as > Bradley's in print, if not better. Unless the *sales* of Russ' books are numerically close to those for Bradley's you're simply confirming what I said. "Percentage of books in print" is meaningless in this context --Then why do you persist in referring to how many books you see on the shelves? Bradley would have considerably fewer as well, without the exceptional case of THE MISTS OF AVALON achieving genuine bestseller status, and the resulting boost in sales for her other titles (more publicity for her other books) (you might've seen three or four titles in the late '70s, as I often did). And, again, the L'Amours are not outselling everything else in the store--they are left over, so to speak, from the time he and his ghosted books did sell much better than they do now. Bookselling is an imprecise business. If Bujold has the most books out on the shelves right now, that means she has the most in print in reasonably priced editions from a publisher who has enough clout to encourage the bookstores to take a chance on stocking her backlist. This only remotely and perhaps eventually reflects actual current sales. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:45:40 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ( i used to post to this list....have been lurking in recent months) (Truculenty, I type) I'm a little puzzled by this discussion. Ok, so Russ is not read by frat boys, television anchors, middle management types, etc, etc. Therefore.....? --Her work is irrelevent and she should write space opera? Leaving aside the fact that Russ may well influence lots of people who produce things which then influence others...I swear I detect a lot of Russisms in a lot of sf. --Somehow highfalutin' serious stuff is inferior to the taste of the masses? Sorry to go all Horkheimer on you, but (even though "worth" is a debateable concept) there are loads and loads of things, from authentic Beijing dumplings to abstract expressionism to German prosody, that are underappreciated but still worth while. --Let's reason by analogy, here. There are a lot of African-American writers, including more or less the first writer on Europe and what it drew from African traditions (whose name escapes me but I swear on my life this is true...) whose work is in print barely if at all and who are infrequently cited outside of, say, African Studies classes. This means that they're boring and uninfluential and have little to contribute? That no one would possibly read some African American because they keep talking about race and what a drag that is? Or do we look at some other factors in the culture that cause the whole thing? And....what exactly do we mean by ordinary people? This rough demotic passion of Americans for the ideas of the ordinary Joe seems to me to be a little suspect. Then too, what does it mean that Danielle Steele is a bestseller? That many of Steven King;s clunkier works outsell his fancier stuff? What exactly are we talking about when we talk about popularity? And does Russ really have the opportunity to be popular? I had to look quite hard to find her books, and haven't seen all of them even now. If she is intially published in small numbers by a small press, and not given the ad build-up that more bankrolled authors are (consider that much less enjoyable books on feminist topics (vide el Beauty Myth) have sold quite well when widely reviewed and marketed.) then no one gets the idea to demand her stuff in major editions. Too, much sf is marketed to the boys, mostly boys read it...no one is going to say, aha, this feminist book will fly with right-wing Ayn Randian fifteen year olds. so, no one has heard of Russ, ergo, no one demands Russ's work. Therefore? I assume our agenda re Russ is a little more than discussing how many people read her...in fact, I am fascinated by the way this whole question has been narrowly framed. Truculently yours, A fanatic fan of Russ's, who, being Swedish-American, female, and living in an innner city largely non-white neighborhood and eating vegetarian, is emphatically not an average Joe of any sort, but who likes to think that her opinions matter, anyway. >>> Mike Stanton 06/17/99 01:45PM >>> On 17 Jun 99, at 10:34, Todd Mason wrote: > --Humorous feminist sf? THE FEMALE MAN is pretty damned > funny, and so are parts of the Alyx stories and much else by > Russ. Of course, the Most popular feminist SF would be Marge > Piercy, Margaret Atwood, and Ursula K. LeGuin's. Even Kathy > Acker's probably rivals C J Cherryh's for sales. We obviously have VERY different ideas on what constitutes (a) humour and (b) light. Perhaps I should have said space opera (although that's too confining a description). I've read 1 book each of the first 2 (_Woman on the edge of time_ and _The Handmaid's tale_ respectively), 3 of LeGuin's and I've been trying to read _Empire of the Senseless_ for months. I'd consider none of them either light or humorous rather I'd suggest they were tedious to *pleasure seeking readers* like myself. I can't possibly accept your estimate of sales. If you go to 5-10 of the larger US bookstores and count the number of available books by each author (a crude but often surprisingly accurate way of estimating sales), I'd be exceedingly surprised if you arrived at higher figures for Marge Piercy than C J Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold (the *real* best selling feminist author) or Anne Mcaffrey. > --So you were avoiding all feminist sf before this > time? Seems like a tricky bit of filtering. Though > perhaps not as difficult as profeminists > might wish. Not really, it simply reflects my tastes for "light" literature and to the wealth of competing "light" material available in other genres. My real vice is crime / thrillers / mysteries etc. Upto last July I probably hadn't read 200 sf books in 20 years of desultorily reading sf. Besides how would I have known that XYZ was a feminist author? My copies of _The female man_, Saxton's _Queen of the States_, Elgin's _Native tongue_, Gilman's _Herland_ and Scott's _Passing for human_, all books by impeccable, well-known, feminists, do not have a single suggestion anywhere on the covers that they are written by feminists. In my unregenerate days, I'd have just read the notes on the back covers and hastily put the book down - not because it was feminist but because it would be completely at odds with my usual reading. For example, what would I or any other "space opera" buff think of a book described as follows: "[it] is about Magdalen, a young woman who is on her own planet, out to lunch and on her own trip. She moves through time and space, from a private mental hospital to an alien space ship where she is interrogated about human behaviour and the function of sex" (Quote from the blurb on the cover of _Queen of the states_). Like almost every sf or crime buff I know, I don't read about authors, I just read their books. Let me be honest: if you'd asked me to name ONE feminist sf/f author on 20 July 1998, I wouldn't have been able to - and that was the day after I'd read my first Cherryh! In fact, although I've read many hundreds of crime etc novels and I'm sure that there are feminist crime etc writers, I wouldn't be able to name one of them (unless Nicola Griffith fits in here). > --That depends on which databases you are consulting. > Are sf fans ordinary people? Are regular readers of SF? > Anyone who has read AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS is > familiar with at least one Russ story...and this is > not an obscure anthology, even if it is op in the US at the moment. I mentioned newspaper databases which (I didn't mention this) included a monstrous selection of US and European papers. And I wasn't talking about sf fans. I specifically said "ordinary" people who would include only a minority of sf fans (because these form a minority of readers who in turn form a minority of ordinary people). _Again dangerous visions_ was published, what, about 1969-70 although my own British version was published in 1971. Even aside from the fact that most sf/f readers wouldn't have been born then, I question whether one story in a 30 year old book is likely to have been significantly influential. > --"ordinary people" (which I'm taking to mean > nonacademics and nonwriters generally) don't really > have access to most media. Word of mouth and our > present medium are the major demotic accesses, and > then only to small audiences. My original note said "public media analysis". "Ordinary people" *do* have access to all public media - that's why it's called public! "public media" includes - but is not limited to - books, magazines, newspapers, TV and radio. I think the companies who spend massive sums of money advertising in the "public media" would be dismayed if they thought that only "small audiences" had access to their messages. > --I think you missed part of her point.HOW was about > the processes which, obviously, discourage women from > writing challenging work. Cherryh and Bradley write > work which tends to be less directly challenging. I wasn't talking about factors like this. I was simply discussing the relationship between "influence" and "ordinary people's" knowledge of a writer. I'm not sure how you fit this "discouragement" concept into the discussion. I've never denied that Cherryh or Bradley write less "challenging" work than Russ - which is why I haven't made the effort to read any more Russ and why I've made/am making complete collections of the others' work. > I don't like it as well, either, but that's neither > here nor there. With one (two? FEMALE MAN and ?ON > STRIKE AGAINST GOD?) of those novels, three of four > nonfiction books I'm aware of, and probably at least > one of the story collections in print in the US > (though possibly none) this is probably > about as high a percentage of her total output as > Bradley's in print, if not better. Unless the *sales* of Russ' books are numerically close to those for Bradley's you're simply confirming what I said. "Percentage of books in print" is meaningless in this context; what is being discussed is "recognition by ordinary people" which is clearly proportional to the number of "ordinary people that have seen / bought etc an author's books". Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:50:31 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Stanton wrote: > I'm actually interested in the lighter side of feminist sf (which I > believe to be the most popular - in the sense of most widely sold - > kind) and my interests in this instance lie in tracing any influences > on authors of these types. I've only been reading femsf for about 10 > months and I wouldn't normally have read _What we are fighting for..._ > but I had a theory on Russ' intentions in writing _The female man_ > and wanted to confirm them so I could discuss the book during the BDG > session last year. It's unlikely, since I'm gradually moving into the > wider field of popular sf, that I'll read any more of Russ' work. I'm curious as to your distinction between "light feminist sf" and (presumably) "heavy feminist sf". Does the fact of feminist content have anything to do with your enjoyment or do you just like fiction that presents feminism in such a way that it is easy to ignore? This isn't a rhetorical question, though it might sound like one. And in another message, Mike wrote: > I'd consider none of them either light or humorous rather I'd suggest > they were tedious to *pleasure seeking readers* like myself. This idea of a "pleasure seeking reader" is a red herring. Everyone reads for pleasure (except those who are forced by coursework, etc.) -- the issue is that each person gets pleasure from different things. I happen to get a lot of pleasure out of much of Le Guin's work, and I loved *Woman on the Edge of Time*. For all I know, my feelings while reading these books might be quite similar to the feeling you get while contemplating Cherryh's star charts; then again, they may be entirely different. (As an aside, I find Cherryh's work much more "challenging" than, for example, *The Left Hand of Darkness* -- which is to say that I have tried to read both *Downbelow Station* and *Cyteen* and so far haved failed to complete either!) I think it's interesting to talk about these things, especially if we can avoid making circular statements that amount to "I like reading the kinds of things that I like"! -- 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, 17 Jun 1999 13:07:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Warner Subject: Re: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Mike Stanton wrote: > On 17 Jun 99, at 10:34, Todd Mason wrote: > > > --Humorous feminist sf? THE FEMALE MAN is pretty > damned > > funny, and so are parts of the Alyx stories and > much else by > > Russ. Of course, the Most popular feminist SF > would be Marge > > Piercy, Margaret Atwood, and Ursula K. LeGuin's. > Even Kathy > > Acker's probably rivals C J Cherryh's for sales. > > We obviously have VERY different ideas on what > constitutes (a) humour and > (b) light. Absolutly. THE FEMALE MAN is screamingly funny, including the whole house-husband scene. It is however, true, that male and female humor can be radically different. Women can and will laugh heartily over menstral jokes, men think its gross for the most part. Nancy Walker does an excellent job of dicussing this subject in "A VERY SERIOUS THING: WOMEN'S HUMOR IN AMERICAN FICTION" Women, while not numerically a minority, have a view that is not the same as the dominant power group, a sort of outside looking in. And, you know, some stuff is just damn funny. For example, the phallic worship scene in Tepper's "GATE TO WOMEN'S COUNTRY". I 'bout dropped the book. Also, Gilman's "HERLAND," the scene where the men want the women to take their names: "Why would went want to do that?" I snickered my way through that one, too. I am not saying that you as a man are unable to appriciate what women find humorous, I'm just saying maybe you could expand your horizons a little. Laugh out loud, its good for you. Enjoy what you are reading. Perhaps I should have said space opera > (although that's too > confining a description). I've read 1 book each of > the first 2 (_Woman on > the edge of time_ and _The Handmaid's tale_ > respectively), Both have written other things. I personally think "WOMAN" is a little over rated in some ways, underrated in others. Piercy's "HE, SHE, and IT" come to mind and Attwood's other works are not so much sf as feminist and certianly worth an outside the genre foray. 3 of LeGuin's > and I've been trying to read _Empire of the > Senseless_ for months. I'd > consider none of them either light or humorous > rather I'd suggest they were > tedious to *pleasure seeking readers* like myself. > > I can't possibly accept your estimate of sales. If > you go to 5-10 of the > larger US bookstores and count the number of > available books by each author > (a crude but often surprisingly accurate way of > estimating sales), I'd be > exceedingly surprised if you arrived at higher > figures for Marge Piercy > than C J Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold (the *real* > best selling feminist > author) or Anne Mcaffrey. > > > --So you were avoiding all feminist sf before this > > time? Seems like a tricky bit of filtering. > Though > > perhaps not as difficult as profeminists > > might wish. > > Not really, it simply reflects my tastes for "light" > literature and to the > wealth of competing "light" material available in > other genres. My real > vice is crime / thrillers / mysteries etc. Upto last > July I probably hadn't > read 200 sf books in 20 years of desultorily reading > sf. > > Besides how would I have known that XYZ was a > feminist author? My copies of > _The female man_, Saxton's _Queen of the States_, > Elgin's _Native tongue_, > Gilman's _Herland_ and Scott's _Passing for human_, > all books by > impeccable, well-known, feminists, do not have a > single suggestion anywhere > on the covers that they are written by feminists. In > my unregenerate days, > I'd have just read the notes on the back covers and > hastily put the book > down - not because it was feminist but because it > would be completely at > odds with my usual reading. > > For example, what would I or any other "space opera" > buff think of a book > described as follows: "[it] is about Magdalen, a > young woman who is on her > own planet, out to lunch and on her own trip. She > moves through time and > space, from a private mental hospital to an alien > space ship where she is > interrogated about human behaviour and the function > of sex" (Quote from the > blurb on the cover of _Queen of the states_). Like > almost every sf or crime > buff I know, I don't read about authors, I just read > their books. > > Let me be honest: if you'd asked me to name ONE > feminist sf/f author on 20 > July 1998, I wouldn't have been able to - and that > was the day after I'd > read my first Cherryh! In fact, although I've read > many hundreds of crime > etc novels and I'm sure that there are feminist > crime etc writers, I > wouldn't be able to name one of them (unless Nicola > Griffith fits in here). > > > --That depends on which databases you are > consulting. > > Are sf fans ordinary people? Are regular readers > of SF? > > Anyone who has read AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS is > > familiar with at least one Russ story...and this > is > > not an obscure anthology, even if it is op in the > US at the moment. > > I mentioned newspaper databases which (I didn't > mention this) included a > monstrous selection of US and European papers. And I > wasn't talking about > sf fans. I specifically said "ordinary" people who > would include only a > minority of sf fans (because these form a minority > of readers who in turn > form a minority of ordinary people). _Again > dangerous visions_ was > published, what, about 1969-70 although my own > British version was > published in 1971. Even aside from the fact that > most sf/f readers wouldn't > have been born then, I question whether one story in > a 30 year old book is > likely to have been significantly influential. > > > --"ordinary people" (which I'm taking to mean > > nonacademics and nonwriters generally) don't > really > > have access to most media. Word of mouth and our > > present medium are the major demotic accesses, and > > then only to small audiences. > > My original note said "public media analysis". > "Ordinary people" *do* have > access to all public media - that's why it's called > public! "public media" > includes - but is not limited to - books, magazines, > newspapers, TV and > radio. I think the companies who spend massive sums > of money advertising in > the "public media" would be dismayed if they thought > that only "small > audiences" had access to their messages. > > > --I think you missed part of her point.HOW was > about > > the processes which, obviously, discourage women > from > > writing challenging work. Cherryh and Bradley > write > > work which tends to be less directly challenging. > > I wasn't talking about factors like this. I was > simply discussing the > relationship between "influence" and "ordinary > people's" knowledge of a > writer. I'm not sure how you fit this > "discouragement" concept into the > discussion. I've never denied that Cherryh or > Bradley write less > "challenging" work than Russ - which is why I > haven't made the effort to > read any more Russ and why I've made/am making > complete collections of the > others' work. > > > I don't like it as well, either, but that's > neither > > here nor there. With one (two? FEMALE MAN and ?ON > > STRIKE AGAINST GOD?) of those novels, three of > four > > nonfiction books I'm aware of, and probably at > least > > one of the story collections in print in the US > > (though possibly none) this is probably > > about as high a percentage of her total output as > > Bradley's in print, if not better. > > Unless the *sales* of Russ' books are numerically > close to those for > Bradley's you're simply confirming what I said. > "Percentage of books in > print" is meaningless in this context; what is being > discussed is > "recognition by ordinary people" which is clearly > proportional to the > number of "ordinary people that have seen / bought > etc an author's books". > > > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) > === Ah, Lesbians. Yummmy. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:30:32 -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: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf: Warner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The notion that there are monolithic Men's and Women's humor (or any-group's, although a menstrual joke is certainly going to hook up into most women's guts, so to speak, more than mine) always bothers me (as a joke about menstruation probably wouldn't, albeit I can see the tendencies toward bifurcation). Atwood is actually quite cognizant of SF (see her contribution to OTHER CANADAS edited by William Contento) and I think she know what she was writing in HANDMAID'S TALE and arguably a few other works (even if LADY ORACLE is my favorite of her novels, and highly recommended). -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Warner [mailto:mwpern@YAHOO.COM] --- Mike Stanton wrote: > On 17 Jun 99, at 10:34, Todd Mason wrote: > > > --Humorous feminist sf? THE FEMALE MAN is pretty > damned > > funny, and so are parts of the Alyx stories and > much else by > > Russ. Of course, the Most popular feminist SF > would be Marge > > Piercy, Margaret Atwood, and Ursula K. LeGuin's. > Even Kathy > > Acker's probably rivals C J Cherryh's for sales. > > We obviously have VERY different ideas on what > constitutes (a) humour and > (b) light. Absolutly. THE FEMALE MAN is screamingly funny, including the whole house-husband scene. It is however, true, that male and female humor can be radically different. Women can and will laugh heartily over menstral jokes, men think its gross for the most part. Nancy Walker does an excellent job of dicussing this subject in "A VERY SERIOUS THING: WOMEN'S HUMOR IN AMERICAN FICTION" Women, while not numerically a minority, have a view that is not the same as the dominant power group, a sort of outside looking in. And, you know, some stuff is just damn funny. For example, the phallic worship scene in Tepper's "GATE TO WOMEN'S COUNTRY". I 'bout dropped the book. Also, Gilman's "HERLAND," the scene where the men want the women to take their names: "Why would went want to do that?" I snickered my way through that one, too. I am not saying that you as a man are unable to appriciate what women find humorous, I'm just saying maybe you could expand your horizons a little. Laugh out loud, its good for you. Enjoy what you are reading. Perhaps I should have said space opera > (although that's too > confining a description). I've read 1 book each of > the first 2 (_Woman on > the edge of time_ and _The Handmaid's tale_ > respectively), Both have written other things. I personally think "WOMAN" is a little over rated in some ways, underrated in others. Piercy's "HE, SHE, and IT" come to mind and Attwood's other works are not so much sf as feminist and certianly worth an outside the genre foray. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:01:19 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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mike Stanton wrote: >I wonder, before we begin discussion of this work I thought we were going to discuss this book and I've even re-read it in honor of the occasion. When are we going to start? Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:03:41 +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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 17 Jun 99, at 15:50, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > I'm curious as to your distinction between > "light feminist sf" and (presumably) "heavy > feminist sf". Does the fact of feminist content > have anything to do with your enjoyment or > do you just like fiction that presents feminism > in such a way that it is easy to ignore? > This isn't a rhetorical question, though > it might sound like one. It doesn't sound rhetorical; it sounds like a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. This discussion has just moved into the less acceptable so I'm withdrawing from it. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:24:45 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: goodbyeeeeeeee! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Although I stayed on the list for some time hoping that the interesting discussions of yore would resume, I have to say that for some months now the negativism, flaming, and prescriptiveness have left me feeling "bashed" as an academic and as a feminist. Not by particular/individual attacks, but by all the ignorant generalizations being made. So I'm outta here! Hope you all enjoy yourselves. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:21:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf: Warner In-Reply-To: <874BCFAAE5A4D211BA020008C70D1005CBBF34@tvgradpo1.tvguide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Todd Mason wrote: > bifurcation). Atwood is actually quite cognizant of SF (see her > contribution to OTHER CANADAS edited by William Contento) and I think she > know what she was writing in HANDMAID'S TALE and arguably a few other works > (even if LADY ORACLE is my favorite of her novels, and highly recommended). > HANDMAID'S TALE is the perfect prequel to Heinlein's REVOLT IN 2100 - same culture, his at the end and hers at the beginning, and if Sister Judith isn't a Handmaid, I'll eat Atwood's bibliography. But wasn't she quoted once as indignantly denying TALE was Sf because "there were no robots or spaceships in it"? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:37:17 -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: Stanton, Ordinary Person, on Russ and feminist sf: Warner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" But was she quoted accurately? And was she pulling a Vonnegut ("SF is more like a social club, a drawer that most critics mistake for a urinal" in paraphrase)? -----Original Message----- From: Pat [mailto:mathews@UNM.EDU] HANDMAID'S TALE is the perfect prequel to Heinlein's REVOLT IN 2100 - same culture, his at the end and hers at the beginning, and if Sister Judith isn't a Handmaid, I'll eat Atwood's bibliography. But wasn't she quoted once as indignantly denying TALE was Sf because "there were no robots or spaceships in it"? Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:38:08 -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: goodbyeeeeeeee!: Reid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" OK, bye. When I feel something ignorant is being said, I tend to attempt to alleviate the ignorance. I enjoy that getting that kind of alleviation. But thanks for your blanket condemnation! -----Original Message----- From: Robin Reid [mailto:Robin_Reid@TAMU-COMMERCE.EDU] Although I stayed on the list for some time hoping that the interesting discussions of yore would resume, I have to say that for some months now the negativism, flaming, and prescriptiveness have left me feeling "bashed" as an academic and as a feminist. Not by particular/individual attacks, but by all the ignorant generalizations being made. So I'm outta here! Hope you all enjoy yourselves. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:38:55 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <80256793.00753C9C.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:03 PM 6/17/99 +0100, Mike Stanton wrote: >It doesn't sound rhetorical; it sounds like a "have you stopped beating >your wife yet?" question. > >This discussion has just moved into the less acceptable so I'm withdrawing >from it. I'm sorry if I offended you, Mike. I absolutely did not mean my question as a "have you stopped beating your wife" trap. You have said before on this list that you are not a feminist and I have taken you at your word. Given that, I am curious why you are making a point of reading works that you identify as feminist. Again, apologies. ----- 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: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 05:52:22 +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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 17 Jun 99, at 11:01, Margery Kempe wrote: > I thought we were going to discuss this book and I've even re-read it in > honor of the occasion. When are we going to start? Margery The exegencies of my job! I had to rush off to Houston directly from New York and don't have the book with me. I'll be back early Friday and will resume then. In the meantime, please go ahead if you wish. Mike Santon (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:32:34 +0100 Reply-To: edward.james@newscientist.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Edward James Subject: Re: Stanton, Ordinary Person,on Russ and feminist sf: Warner MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Todd Mason wrote: > But was she quoted accurately? And was she pulling a Vonnegut ("SF is more > like a social club, a drawer that most critics mistake for a urinal" in > paraphrase)? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat [mailto:mathews@UNM.EDU] > HANDMAID'S TALE is the perfect prequel to Heinlein's REVOLT IN > 2100 - same culture, his at the end and hers at the beginning, and if > Sister Judith isn't a Handmaid, I'll eat Atwood's bibliography. But wasn't > she quoted once as indignantly denying TALE was Sf because "there were no > robots or spaceships in it"? > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu No, she wasn't pulling a Vonnegut. She was quoted several times in interviews that it was by no means SF. When she was the first recipient of the Arth C. Clarke Award for ther best sf book published in the UK (back when I was Chair of the Award committee) she -- and her publisher -- were most indignant, and for years did not acknowledge the award on the book (and presumably still don't). For a long discussion of all this, see my article on it in the latest vcolume of Eaton Conference papers which I am TOLD is out, nearly seven years after the relevant conference actually happened in California...! Edward James ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:42:49 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: Women Scientists in Fiction Comments: cc: Lori_B_Pfahler@rohmhaas.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Lori for a very useful link. I've found it enlightening on many topics related to writing and research. M.Hayball > 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 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:43:13 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: discussing Russ and WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just in case this reminder has not been shared, there is a discussion of Russ and WAWFF at http://www.breakingset.org And, for what one bookseller's opinion is worth, the price on WAWFF certainly hasn't helped sales. Sure, it's basically an academic book, and I guess priced accordingly, but still... 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, 18 Jun 1999 09:13:36 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Warner Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >I read DOWNBELOW STATION for the first time when I was about sixteen and had just moved out of my Heinlien as greatest science fiction writer ever phase. Having read smatterings (Chanur, COOKOO'S EGG, etc) of this author over the years since then, I still find this work to be the most fun to read. The character development is strong, the taste of paranoia keeps you glued to the page. Is this the most "space opera-ish" of her work? In the sense of space pirates and go it alone derring-do? I find the "trust no one" mentality interesting. Also, somewhat different in the sense that, in my experience, many science fiction works pair up the lead character with: buddy, girlfriend/boyfriend, computer,robot, ship, gadgets, etc and the work is as much about the gadgets as it is about anything else. This author seems more personality oriented. What do you folks think? Haven't really discussed this author much, so if I'm totally in left field, let me know. Michelle === Ah, Lesbians. Yummmy. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:05:10 +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: discussing Russ and WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? Comments: To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 17 Jun 99, at 20:43, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Just in case this reminder has not been shared, > there is a discussion of Russ and WAWFF at > http://www.breakingset.org > And, for what one bookseller's opinion is worth, > the price on WAWFF certainly hasn't helped sales. > Sure, it's basically an academic book, and > I guess priced accordingly, but still... Maryelizabeth The version of _What..._ in our personal library is in hardback, the only version AJ could get, which couldn't have helped the price. I'm surprised it wasn't at least issued in trade paperback right off. Makes one wonder whether the publishers did their market research properly because I'm sure with proper marketing they could have sold a lot of copies to "ordinary" feminists. According to "The Venerable Bede", our CATA program, the http://www.breakingset.org site is now inactive although it can still be accessed. Before the end the discussion site had (according to Bede) been dying since about December. I won't have access to the Internet except for email until I get back to Boston so I can't confirm it, but Bede isn't wrong very often. I certainly hope it's not wrong this time, otherwise we've shipped a defective program to our clients! Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:47:04 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Warner Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_ I'm aware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Hi, Folks. Earlier today I was writing email while my brain was on vacation. I have confused MERCHANTER'S LUCK with DOWNBELOW STATION. Profoundly sorry. Michelle > === Ah, Lesbians. Yummmy. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:23:41 +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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 18 Jun 99, at 9:13, Michelle Warner wrote: > Is this the most "space > opera-ish" of her work?In the sense of space pirates > and go it alone derring-do? I find the "trust no one" > mentality interesting. Also, somewhat different in > the sense that, in my experience, many science > fiction works pair up the lead character with: buddy, > girlfriend/boyfriend, computer,robot, ship, gadgets, > etc and the work is as much about the gadgets as it > is about anything else. This author seems more > personality oriented. Michelle In a later note you say you've confused _Merchanter's Luck_ with _Downbelow Station_ but your remarks are, I think, compatible with both. I'm open to correction but I would have chosen the _Chanur_ series (specifically _The pride of Chanur_) as the most "space opera" of her books but the bulk of her books are strongly "space opera". Certainly I think the _Chanur_ books are her most swashbuckling (and Pyanfar Chanur is one of the most "flamboyantly adventurous", but believable aliens in sf). Your use of the word "paranoia" at first struck me as inappropriate, but of course you're perfectly right. _Downbelow Station_ is riddled with paranoia, I think because Cherryh's constructed mysteries within enigmas (rather like Le Carre's work) where individuals or groups of characters have complex hidden agendas requiring them to work with other individuals or groups while secretly undermining them. Signy Mallory (beautifully drawn character), the "Norway's" captain, is of course a master at this as her actions which culminate in her final "betrayal" of her equally treacherous associates show. Most of her books have this streak of paranoia, in which one or all characters believe themselves under threat from every one else. The most blatant example I think seems to be the character Tom in _Tripoint_, but _Cyteen_, _Serpent's Reach_, _Angel with a sword_ (to take a few books at random) are all riddled with it. This applies with particular force to the ending of her books. With a few (but notable) exceptions, Cherryh models her books on real life where outcomes are rarely clean and clear-cut. In many, perhaps, most of her books, although she often indicates the "future" for her characters, the way she does it (_Downbelow Station_ is the perfect example) is so obscure that the reader is left almost without knowing whether the story has come to an end, or whether Cherryh has just left a loose end to be tied up in a sequel. The clearcut ending of _Chanur's Homecoming_, a notable exception, must be almost unique amongst her books. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:42:36 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/17/99 5:09:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK writes: > > I'm curious as to your distinction between > > "light feminist sf" and (presumably) "heavy > > feminist sf". Does the fact of feminist content > > have anything to do with your enjoyment or > > do you just like fiction that presents feminism > > in such a way that it is easy to ignore? > > This isn't a rhetorical question, though > > it might sound like one. > > It doesn't sound rhetorical; it sounds like a "have you stopped beating > your wife yet?" question. > > This discussion has just moved into the less acceptable so I'm withdrawing > from it. > Mike, I think when Janice talked about it being easy to ignore, she was referring more to it being a stealth part of the book. Not one that beats you over the head with feminism (like Russ's "Female Man" or Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" where the feminism really is the whole point of the book). Cherryh's "Cyteen" (which I am mentioning because someone else did and I happen to be re-reading it right now) had elements of feminism, but doesn't beat you over the head pointing out that Ari Emory is a woman with power, it just takes it for granted. It doesn't present it as unusual, or strange or try to say, "look what a better world/universe this would be if women had power, too, or instead of men". Instead it tells a story about a powerful woman and the focus of your attention can be on the story, instead of on the fact that "Whoa! This is about a woman who has power!" In this case, the feminism is easier to ignore because it is done so lightly and well that those who aren't looking for "feminist sf" may actually pick it up, read it, and thus have their opinions subtly altered to accept the concept of women with power. I don't think that could be said about Russ's work. I could be wrong, but based on Janice's previous posts over the last 10 months I've been on the list; I think that is the direction that Janice was heading with her question. Not toward male-bashing. Feel free to correct me, Janice, if I'm wrong. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:28:37 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Agnes Imgart Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <80256793.00753C9C.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT For those who are interested in Joanna Russ's influence on contemporary thought - I just came across an interesting article : Automating Feminism: The Case of Joanna Russ's The Female Man by Heather J. Hicks, Villanova University http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/current.issue/9.3hicks.html And a thought on the ongoing discussion about Russ's influence, ie her importance for "ordinary" people: Mike, who interestingly enough never gets tired of pointing out that he is NOT a feminist but represents the "ordinary" American, might as well give us an idea of how those "ordinary" people judge feminism: It is simply not considered as relevant. And they think it is boring. Agnes ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:37:09 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Tanya Bouwman wrote: >I think when Janice talked about it being easy to ignore, she was >referring more to it being a stealth part of the book. Not one that beats >you over the head with feminism (like Russ's "Female Man" or Piercy's >"Woman on the Edge of Time" where the feminism really is the whole point >of the book). Cherryh's "Cyteen" (which I am mentioning because someone >else did and I happen to be re-reading it right now) had elements of >feminism, but doesn't beat you over the head pointing out that Ari Emory >is a woman with power, it just takes it for granted. It doesn't present >it as unusual, or strange or try to say, "look what a better >world/universe this would be if women had power, too, or instead of men". I don't know what Mike thinks of this but I'm confused. Are you saying that a book which has women with all the privileges etc of men but doesn't keep pointing it out is not fully feminist? I think thought that since full equality between men and women is what feminism is all about, Cherryh's Cyteen is a very feminist book. Also perhaps I'm misunderstanding what stealth feminism is, but I think that Cherryh's books are far more stealthy because they show a very desirable situation and how well it works as being perfectly normal. This is much more likely to subtly alter men's opinions than calling them oppressors and abusive fools like some writers do. >I could be wrong, but based on Janice's previous posts over the last 10 >months I've been on the list; I think that is the direction that Janice >was heading with her question. Not toward male-bashing. Feel free to >correct me, Janice, if I'm wrong. I've only been on the list a couple of weeks but I think what Janice said is male-bashing or rather Mike-bashing. I wonder if the reason why Mike doesn't like the books he calls "heavy" is because they're male-bashing. I never understand why women say men are antifeminist just because they don't like male-bashing books. I hope Mike will give me some feedback on this even if its offlist. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:41:09 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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mike Stanton wrote: >Signy Mallory (beautifully >drawn character), the "Norway's" captain, is of course a master at this as >her actions which culminate in her final "betrayal" of >her equally treacherous associates show. I thought Cherryh used Signy to show the futility of struggling against the tide of history. Here she shows a strong honorable female captain keeping a mutinous roughneck crew under tight control. Signy's intelligent, very good at her job and with good ideas about what the future should hold but her ideas are outdated or too far ahead of their time (depending which way you read the story). She tries to be the "rugged individualist" standing up to Mazian, Union and the merchanter Alliance at the same time but in the end she and her crew are washed away by the tide, left alone in a universe which is divided into blocs with no place for the honorable loner. I didn't think that she was treacherous at all because she fought her ship to the very end even when she thought that Mazian's plan was poorly conceived and she doubted whether it could succeed. Cherryh just showed what happens when an honorable person tries to stand up against treachery. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:09:30 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Agnes Imgart wrote: >And a thought on the ongoing discussion about Russ's influence, ie >her importance for "ordinary" people: Mike, who interestingly >enough never gets tired of pointing out that he is NOT a feminist >but represents the "ordinary" American, might as well give us an >idea of how those "ordinary" people judge feminism: It is simply not >considered as relevant. And they think it is boring. He's never suggested that he represents the "ordinary" American because he's an Irishman who's married to an Englishwoman and who lives in Italy but travels and works all over the world including the US. I don't know any Americans, ordinary or otherwise, that are like that. If you atcually read the notes he's posted over the last six months, you'll find that he's much more widely read in feminism than most of the women who call themselves feminists, possibly more than most people on this list. Look at his book lists and you'll find he buys and *enjoys* just as much feminist sf/f of the "lighter" variety as almost anyone else on the list. As for the "non-feminist" business, I think he's playing with words again and that he's using a definition which covers a much wider ground than the dictionary's. I don't see how anyone can enjoy some of the books he's enjoyed and not be a feminist at least in the dictionary sense. Give him his due, he's never suggested that feminism is either boring or irrelevant. What he has suggested is that he finds some feminist books ... many I think are male-bashing as Margery suggests ... of no interest. I think a lot of the same books are boring myself which is why I read a lot more crime stories and thrillers than femst. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:11:48 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Margery Kempe wrote: >I've only been on the list a couple of weeks but I think what Janice said >is male-bashing or rather Mike-bashing. I wonder if the reason why Mike >doesn't like the books he calls "heavy" is because they're male-bashing. I >never understand why women say men are antifeminist just because they >don't like male-bashing books. I hope Mike will give me some feedback on >this even if its offlist. Margery I think you're right. Some of the books that have been mentioned are so male-bashing that I couldn't blame any self-respecting man for not liking them. Women can be so blind sometimes. I was at a party a couple of years ago when a woman said "All men are rapists" in front of a man she was going out with for the first time. At the end of the evening he dumped her and she honestly wondered why! I don't know why people don't read what Mike actually writes . I know he's got this irritating habit of playing on words sometimes but that doesn't excuse bashing him for things he didn't say. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:41:41 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Andrea H." Organization: Sanity Assassins, Inc. Subject: Re: discussing Russ and WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oops - sorry folks, I've been too busy to do much more than lurk these past months, but yes, the Joanna Russ discussion site (http://www.breakingset.org) has indeed been taken down. I can't say at this point if a new site will be put up, but if it happens, I'll announce it to the list. A. Harris Mike Stanton wrote: > On 17 Jun 99, at 20:43, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > > > Just in case this reminder has not been shared, > > there is a discussion of Russ and WAWFF at > > http://www.breakingset.org > > According to "The Venerable Bede", our CATA program, the > http://www.breakingset.org site is now inactive although it can still be > accessed. Before the end the discussion site had (according to Bede) been > dying since about December. I won't have access to the Internet except for > email until I get back to Boston so I can't confirm it, but Bede isn't > wrong very often. I certainly hope it's not wrong this time, otherwise > we've shipped a defective program to our clients! > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:46:36 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <19990619153710.33733.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Tanya Bouwman wrote: >I could be wrong, but based on Janice's previous posts over the last 10 >months I've been on the list; I think that is the direction that Janice >was heading with her question. Not toward male-bashing. Feel free to >correct me, Janice, if I'm wrong. And Margery Kempe replied: >I've only been on the list a couple of weeks but I think what Janice said is >male-bashing or rather Mike-bashing. I wonder if the reason why Mike doesn't >like the books he calls "heavy" is because they're male-bashing. I never >understand why women say men are antifeminist just because they don't like >male-bashing books. I hope Mike will give me some feedback on this even if >its offlist. Tanya is correct. My comment was in no way an attempt to bash Mike for being male. I don't know why anyone would think that, unless sometime when I wasn't looking the definition of male-bashing became "to say something potentially offensive to a person who happens to be of the male sex." As far as Mike-bashing... I'm sure Mike knew that when he called himself a "non-feminist" in this forum he was going to arouse some controversy. I was curious as to why a non-feminist would want to read books that he clearly identifies as being feminist. Perhaps it is true that his definition of the term "non-feminist" is quite different from the standard meaning, which is not clearly differentiated from "anti-feminist". This is Claudia's guess. I was hoping that Mike himself could shed some light on this, but I guess he is not interested. I am irked by this singling out of so-called "male-bashing books". There are very few feminist books I would consider male-bashing. (Yes, I can think of a few.) I think it is indicative of how far we still have to go that even acknowledging that sexism exists and that is a real, significant problem, gets some books branded as anti-male. That, to me, is ridiculous. I enjoy books that unselfconsciously place women in positions of power, but I think that these books also are not addressing questions that I think are very pressing, such as, "how do we get there from here?" In reality there is no magic wand that will make sexism disappear. It takes long hard work. And I crave books that see and struggle with that reality. That doesn't mean that I think that books like *Slow River* or *Downbelow Station* are any less feminist, it just means that they do not speak to this particular interest. This also does not mean that I think every book with feminism as its central focus is a masterpiece. But I would like to feel that, in this of all places, books would not be casually dismissed as "male-bashing" for actually being about feminism! ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: The *Velvet Goldmine* Soundtrack "...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: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:52:35 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >them. Women can be so blind sometimes. I was at a party a couple of years >ago when a woman said "All men are rapists" in front of a man she was >going out with for the first time. At the end of the evening he dumped her >and she honestly wondered why! My former sister in law was like that. She started insulting Tom at the wedding breakfast and kept it up all the time (8 months) the marriage lasted. Even 5 years later she hasn't worked it out because she still complains about how men go out with her once or twice and then stop calling. >I don't know why people don't read what Mike actually writes . I know >he's got this irritating habit of playing on words sometimes but that >doesn't excuse bashing him for things he didn't say. I think we should just ignore this and get back to the discussion of Downbelow Station so that we can get moving. We have really started and we've got a lot of Cherryh books to cover. I'm going to set the filter on my account to trash these things and I think you should do the same. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:55:05 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Janice E. Dawley wrote: >Perhaps it is true that his definition of the term "non-feminist" is quite >different from the standard >meaning, which is not clearly differentiated >from "anti-feminist". This is Claudia's guess. I was hoping that Mike >himself could shed some light on >this, but I guess he is not interested. Perhaps he's just being wise because he knows that no matter what he says someone is going to distort whatever he says. Look what happened last time! In this one paragraph you've distorted what I said. You wrote that it was my (Claudia's guess that "his definition of the term 'non-feminist' is quite different from the standard meaning, which is not clearly differentiated from 'anti-feminist'" when what I said was "he's using a definition which covers a much wider ground than the dictionary's". I also said "I don't see how anyone can enjoy some of the books he's enjoyed and not be a feminist at least in the dictionary sense". The standard meaning (or 'dictionary sense') of "feminism" from the Oxford Dictionary is "advocacy of women's rights on grounds of equality of the sexes". The books he's enjoyed and recommended are **ALL** feminist on these grounds. Mike was right when he said that this discussion has turned ugly and I'm also going to stop discussing it. It's no wonder that all the interesting book discussions have been driven offlist. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:32:39 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <19990619205505.53198.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:55 PM 6/19/99 CEST, Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >In this one paragraph you've distorted what I said. You wrote that it was my >(Claudia's guess that "his definition of the term 'non-feminist' is quite >different from the standard meaning, which is not clearly differentiated >from 'anti-feminist'" when what I said was "he's using a definition which >covers a much wider ground than the dictionary's". My American Heritage Dictionary does not have an entry for "non-feminist". I don't see how I have significantly distorted what you said. >I also said "I don't see how anyone can enjoy some of the books he's enjoyed >and not be a feminist at least in the dictionary sense". The standard >meaning (or 'dictionary sense') of "feminism" from the Oxford Dictionary is >"advocacy of women's rights on grounds of equality of the sexes". The books >he's enjoyed and recommended are **ALL** feminist on these grounds. And how does that jibe with his self-designation as "non-feminist"? That is my question. Of course he is free not to respond to that question, but that was what I was asking. >Mike was right when he said that this discussion has turned ugly and I'm >also going to stop discussing it. It's no wonder that all the interesting >book discussions have been driven offlist. I don't see it as ugly. At least not compared to many discussions in the past. As for the book discussions, it is a "distortion" to say that the BDG was driven off-list. It simply fit better with the other list's mission, which is "on-topic" discussion. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: The *Velvet Goldmine* Soundtrack "...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: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:11:46 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/19/99 11:37:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, the_anchoress@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > I don't know what Mike thinks of this but I'm confused. Are you saying that > a book which has women with all the privileges etc of men but doesn't keep > pointing it out is not fully feminist? Margery, No, I'm not. I'm saying that because it's a part of the story (totally incorporated into ti) and isn't the whole story that it is easier to digest, easier to read, and far more likely to change opinions. > I think thought that since full > equality between men and women is what feminism is all about, Cherryh's > Cyteen is a very feminist book. Also perhaps I'm misunderstanding what > stealth feminism is, but I think that Cherryh's books are far more stealthy > because they show a very desirable situation and how well it works as being > perfectly normal. This is much more likely to subtly alter men's opinions > than calling them oppressors and abusive fools like some writers do. We're on the same page here. Since, I would be unlikely to enjoy reading any book that constantly yells at me for being a woman, I can see why Mike would not enjoy reading books that yell at him for being male; but could enjoy books that present an egalitarian society (a book with feminist thought at it's roots) that tell an enjoyable story and don't yell at him for something he has no control over--being male. Personally, I prefer those kind of books, too. Which is not to say that I don't read or enjoy the "heavy" feminist books, but that I get more enjoyment out of the "lighter" ones. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:55:27 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Tanya Bouwman wrote: >Since, I would be unlikely to enjoy reading any book that constantly yells >at me for being a woman, I can see why Mike would not enjoy reading books >that yell at him for being male; but could enjoy books that present an >egalitarian society (a book with feminist thought at it's roots) that tell >an enjoyable story and don't yell at him for something he has no control >over--being male. Personally, I prefer those kind of books, too. Which is >not to say that I don't read or enjoy the "heavy" feminist books, but that >I get more enjoyment out of the "lighter" ones. It's not just that that annoys me, it's the snide loaded questions to someone who just expressed his taste in books. It's not just the questions it's also the tone of the questions. It's Mike's right to like or dislike any book for any reason, even ones which you or me or anyone else might think are wrong. Snide comments quickly lead to quarrels and flaming. Already the most interesting discussions on Slow River and The Blue Place have to be held offlist (I don't mean on the feministsf-lit list either) because of the continual sniping. I don't want the same to happen to other books, because I like to hear what every one has to say. It's bad enough that I'm already sending one person's postings to the trashcan without reading them. Anyway this is the last note I'm going to write on this. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 11:16:10 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <19990620085527.36646.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:55 PM 6/19/99 HST, Margery Kempe wrote: >...I like to hear what every one has to say. It's bad enough >that I'm already sending one person's postings to the trashcan without >reading them. Anyone else notice the contradiction here? But seriously, folks. I don't see that what I have written in any of my messages is particularly offensive to those who really want to discuss feminist science fiction AS feminist science fiction. That was what this list was created for. Sadly, it seems to have veered off course in the last couple of months. Unless all those lurkers (I know you are out there!) step in to turn things around, I'm afraid it will continue in this vein indefinitely. That's too bad because this used to be a stimulating feminist space that I really enjoyed being a part of. As it is, I may soon be following Robin's lead and unsubscribing. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: The *Velvet Goldmine* Soundtrack "...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, 20 Jun 1999 18:28:26 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: R: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit it seems self-evident to me that feminist sf and fantasy has something to do with feminism itself- which feminism does not just mean saying that women ought to be treated with equal rights, but recognizing that a social system exists which, among other things, promotes and fosters this basic unequality and oppression (patriarchy). And it's absurd, I think, to divorce UK Le Guin's or J.Tiptree's work (to make just two names) from this background. Anybody can enjoy himself (herself) at his (her) own pleasure; but one should be aware of the ground one is treading- of the struggles, discoveries, sufferings, joys, losses which have been involved; of the hopes too: like J.Russ wrote some thirty years ago, "we shall be free".- And I'm not defending a space here, or attacking anybody, but talking about values and meanings. G.Conserva -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Janice E. Dawley A: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Data: domenica 20 giugno 1999 16.15 Oggetto: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton >At 10:55 PM 6/19/99 HST, Margery Kempe wrote: >>...I like to hear what every one has to say. It's bad enough >>that I'm already sending one person's postings to the trashcan without >>reading them. > >Anyone else notice the contradiction here? > >But seriously, folks. I don't see that what I have written in any of my >messages is particularly offensive to those who really want to discuss >feminist science fiction AS feminist science fiction. That was what this >list was created for. Sadly, it seems to have veered off course in the last >couple of months. Unless all those lurkers (I know you are out there!) step >in to turn things around, I'm afraid it will continue in this vein >indefinitely. That's too bad because this used to be a stimulating feminist >space that I really enjoyed being a part of. As it is, I may soon be >following Robin's lead and unsubscribing. > >----- >Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT >http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:02:09 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: correction MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry to say the Joanna Russ discussion site does seem to be closed. I hadn't been for a while, and cut and pasted from my bookmarks without doublechecking. Mike, one comment about WAWFF and the hardback edition -- whilea TP may be forthcoming, or might have been issued simultaneously, I think the hardback decision was absolutely necessary, as I am sure a large percentage of sales are to libraries. 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, 20 Jun 1999 09:22:36 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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 15 Jun 99, at 8:37, Mike Stanton wrote: >Cherryh was grossly overoptimistic about the rate at which >space exploration would expand in this century and early next (she gives >"2005-2352" as the period of space exploration leading up to the period in >which _Downbelow Station_ takes >place). This is not a major problem because if we use European exploration >in Africa and the New World after 1400 as a guide, we can just about >accommodate Cherryh's projected rate of expansion even if we assume that >active manned solar system exploration doesn't restart until 2050.. Like all Cherryh fans, I've always assumed that Cherryh's science and technology is pretty good, considering that Downbelow Station was wriiten almost 20 years ago. That note of Maryelizabeth's about "anachronisms' got me thinking and I've since realized that Cherryh's extrapolations of technology are pretty bad. Her ships are a mixture of highly advanced "hyperspace" technology which is very poorly described and what looks like technology left over from the 1960s. The most glaringly obvious flaws are in the most important things that keep our current technology going ... electronics and computers. Her computer systems specially seem primitive mainframe driven systems which even when she wrote the book were clearly on their way out. Surely she can't have believed that computers reached their peak in the 60s-70s? Then there's her space stations. What she says in the first chapter of Downbelow Station, is that the ships being sent out from Sol station were equipped with technology for mining and building space stations. So when they arrived at their destination they landed, mined and smelted metal, built their own station, built modules and sent these on to the next star. The planets found around the first 9 planets were completely barren and unable to support life. How likely is it that a small crew could land on a *barren* planet's surface, mine iron ores and smelt them using something like a blast furnace, forge or extrude the metal into beams or plates, hoist it into orbit and then build a space station? Even if they found metal in asteroids or meteors how could they smelt it in space? What about the thousands of other components a space station requires like electric generators and motors, hydraulic pumps and actuators, lights, power cables, electronic components like transistors and ics (all of which were common when Downbelow Station was written), laser components and other things? I worked in production engineering and I know these aren't the sort of things that one can just knock up in a backyards workshop, they need high technology factories even to produce small quantities. We might argue that all the high tech components were brought from earth but Cherryh specifically says in those timelines on her website the only thing brought out was "biostuffs". The stuff they sent back to earth was the "surplus of its ores" so from the start the stations had to mine more than it required for building so that it could make money by selling the excess. What sort of metals could they possibly find that were so valuable that it was cheaper to mine them on an extrasolar planet and send them all the way back taking (at first) many years to do so? The more I think about what Maryelizabeth said the more I realise that we have accept that Cherryh's science and technology was poor and, as Maryelizabeth said, we have to just get past the major flaws and talk about the good stuff. Of course this means, Mike, that some of what you said in the quote is a lot of ... Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:25:47 +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: correction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 19 Jun 99, at 22:02, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Mike, one comment about WAWFF and the hardback edition -- whilea TP may be > forthcoming, or might have been issued simultaneously, I think the > hardback decision was absolutely necessary, as I am sure a large > percentage of sales are to libraries. I agree with you completely; I doubt if _What ... _ would have been published if the publishers hadn't felt they could bank on a lot of library sales. At a guess I'd have said that 30-35% of sales must have been to academic and other libraries. Does anyone know whether Russ had problems getting a publisher? As a professional in the front line, what would you have estimated the total sales to be, Maryelizabeth? If the book had been published in *Europe*, I would have estimated sales of about 1500-2000 (although the top end seems optimistic in the absence of advertising). My own guess for people on *this* list would be a maximum of 20-25 personal copies with a total of perhaps 50 people having read the book. After the comments made on the subject earlier I've tried to find out how readily available the book is. None of the 5 big bookstores (in Houston (Tx) and Boston (Mass)) where I asked about it over the last few days had copies and I was quoted upwards of two weeks to get one. The price was US$27.95 (compared to Amazon.com's price of US$19.57), which is a lot of money for most of us so I'm not too surprised that it's not readily available. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:40:48 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Beth Brown Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/99 10:03:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Edward James writes: > > From: Pat [mailto:mathews@UNM.EDU] > > HANDMAID'S TALE is the perfect prequel to Heinlein's REVOLT IN > > 2100 - same culture, his at the end and hers at the beginning, and if > > Sister Judith isn't a Handmaid, I'll eat Atwood's bibliography. But wasn't > > she quoted once as indignantly denying TALE was Sf because "there were no > > robots or spaceships in it"? > > > > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > > mathews@unm.edu > > No, she wasn't pulling a Vonnegut. She was quoted several times in > interviews > that it was by no means SF. When she was the first recipient of the Arth C. > Clarke Award for ther best sf book published in the UK (back when I was > Chair > of the Award committee) she -- and her publisher -- were most indignant, and > for years did not acknowledge the award on the book (and presumably still > don't). I can't help contrasting this to what Mary Doria Russell said at WisCon last month. The Sparrow prompted a correspondence between Russell and the Pope's astronomer, who insisted to her that The Sparrow is not sci fi. Her response was, "they don't give the Arthur C. Clarke award for mysteries!" Beth ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:49:03 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Atwood is what we Canuks call a "Can-Lit" academic type -- horrified to be associated with anything as crass, coarse and vulgar as mere _science fiction_. She writes real lit'rachure, you see. Not that rubbishy stuff people read for mere entertainment. THE HANDMAID'S TALE is a not-bad SF novel, actually. The characterization and prose style are usually very good, although like most authors Atwood has a hard time getting inside the head of people she dislikes -- her villains tend to the cardboard. And like most mainstreamers who venture into genre she has a tendency to re-invent the wheel without realizing it, doing things that were standard in the SF field 40 years ago and thinking she's original. But on the whole, it's quite good. I certainly enjoyed it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:50:25 GMT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marianne Reddin Aldrich Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Actually, last I heard (an interview in a 1997 or 1998 'lit'rachure' type periodical I was poking through in the reading room at McGill), she had come around to acknowledging it as scifi. Which, duh, most of the novel's fans had known all along. However, she was VERY firm that her other work, while some of it might contain 'fantastic elements', was in no way to be considered sci-fi, or any other genre for that matter. sigh. either it is too crass and populist and they won't accept the label, or it's too heady and marginal and the publishers won't label it. the joys of 'genre fiction'. Marianne > >Atwood is what we Canuks call a "Can-Lit" academic type -- horrified to be >associated with anything as crass, coarse and vulgar as mere _science >fiction_. She writes real lit'rachure, you see. Not that rubbishy stuff >people read for mere entertainment. > >THE HANDMAID'S TALE is a not-bad SF novel, actually. The characterization >and prose style are usually very good, although like most authors Atwood >has >a hard time getting inside the head of people she dislikes -- her villains >tend to the cardboard. > >And like most mainstreamers who venture into genre she has a tendency to >re-invent the wheel without realizing it, doing things that were standard >in >the SF field 40 years ago and thinking she's original. > >But on the whole, it's quite good. I certainly enjoyed it. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:59:55 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ianthe Subject: Re: Atwood and genres Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm just going to introduce myself, because I've been lurking for about a week so I don't tread on any toes.. ...so Hullo - I'm Jenn in New Zealand Marianne wrote.. >sigh. >either it is too crass and populist and they won't accept the label, or >it's >too heady and marginal and the publishers won't label it. the joys of >'genre fiction'. - It seems that often, science fiction or any other genre, is whatever the publisher finds convenient to call science fiction etc.. there are so many definitions for the genre around that we can pretty much pick or chose what we wish to define as scifi... So Atwood didn't acknowledge her award at first, and it works the other way too, wasn't there alot of fuss when Connie Willis won the Hugo for *The Doomsday Book* because it wasn't "science fiction"? Jenn I was a vision in another eye and they saw nothing, no future at all. Yet I was free. I needed nobody, it was beautiful, it was beautiful. - Patti Smith ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:56:54 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale In-Reply-To: <4f5c0c42.249ed7ef@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 20 Jun 99 S.M. Stirling wrote: > And like most mainstreamers who venture into genre she has a > tendency to re-invent the wheel without realizing it, doing things > that were standard in the SF field 40 years ago and thinking she's > original. It was stated once before on this list that the SF part of _Handmaid's Tale_ is rather old hat. But unfortunately it was not clarified at that time why and what. Where did Atwood reinvent the wheel in the novel? Not that I disagree but I don't know. I've read the novel at a time I had not read a lot of SF yet. But even thinking back I don't come up with anything. Please enlighten me. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:41:10 +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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 20 Jun 99, at 9:22, Margery Kempe wrote: > Like all Cherryh fans, I've always assumed that Cherryh's science and > technology is pretty good, considering that Downbelow Station was wriiten > almost 20 years ago. That note of Maryelizabeth's about "anachronisms' got > me thinking and I've since realized that Cherryh's extrapolations of > technology are pretty bad. It's a weakness of most sf writers, I think, even those that have a scientific background because I think they all too often let their enthusiasms run away with them. Cherryh's problem (I think) is that she didn't research her first books in adequate depth because she was caught up in the grand view of events. Later when she'd had time to think it out, she was too committed by _Downbelow Station_ to change. In the preamble to _Hellburner_, she describes all too briefly how she laid out her future history and this shows up very clearly the weaknesses in her method. > Her ships are a mixture of highly advanced "hyperspace" technology which > is very poorly described and what looks like technology left over from the > 1960s. The most glaringly obvious flaws are in the most important things > that keep our current technology going ... electronics and computers. Her > computer systems specially seem primitive mainframe driven systems which > even when she wrote the book were clearly on their way out. Someone else pointed out offlist the absence of back up computer systems. Her computer interfaces seem to be modelled on DOS even in later books like _Tripoint_. The way forward, even in 1981, was clearly graphical user interfaces like the Apple Mac or MS Windows in a distributed environment (with computers like PC's on a network). My *personal* view - and I'm putting this as carefully as I can - is that Cherryh in some ways regarded desktop computers as toys, handy toys, useful toys, but toys nonetheless. When you think that she worked with the Atari 48K (which was a toy) it's not that surprising. In some ways, Anne McCaffrey had the same problem - _Partnership_ is a very good example. > Then there's her space stations. What she says in the first chapter of > Downbelow Station, is that the ships being sent out from Sol station were > equipped with technology for mining and building space stations. So when > they arrived at their destination they landed, mined and smelted metal, > built their own station, built modules and sent these on to the next star. > The planets found around the first 9 planets were completely barren and > unable to support life. This is certainly a weakness. It reminds me of the joke about the cat-fur farm where a farmer raises cats and rats. He feeds the rats to the cats, kills the cats and sells their pelts, then feeds the cat carcasses to the rats - all profit and no cost. Rather like a Ponzi scheme or perpetual motion. Her economics also contains elements of this. But closed systems have worked / are working on earth, and once a significant population develops in space or on a planet, the problem vanishes. As I see it, _Downbelow Station_ lies at the point where the problem is about to vanish . It's the very short time span that it takes in her universe to build up this critical population level that troubles me. > How likely is it that a small crew could land on a > *barren* planet's surface, mine iron ores and smelt them using something > like a blast furnace, forge or extrude the metal into beams or plates, > hoist it into orbit and then build a space station? I don't hink it's that likely. Iron is hard to smelt and still harder to fabricate. And lifting it out the atmosphere of a planet would be prohibitively expensive. I'd have thought at least initially that planetary mining would have been for rarer, low bulk products. ven the lighter metals like aluminium, titanium and magnesium are difficult to smelt in the absent of large amounts of power. I think you're right about the "extraterrestrial origins" of the metals. > Even if they found metal in asteroids or meteors how could they > smelt it in space? Here I think you're wrong in several ways. She implies in the first chapter ("no need for even a moderate sun-type star...just the solar wind and the usual debris of metals, rock and ice") that what station builders needed could be obtained in space. Providing great heat in space wouldn't be that difficult where, say, very light solar mirrors kilometres in diameter to heat solar furnaces could be build. Of course one would have the "solar sail" problem but I think it could be easily overcome. I don't know what the problems would be of smelting in space would be but there are tremendous advantages to zero gravity metallurgy and, of course, a wide range of "gravities" could be provided by spinning the metallurical works. It's providing "organic" materials like plastics which come from petrochemicals etc that troubles me but organic materials (methane is common) in comets for example could be used for fuel or synthesis. > What about the thousands of other components a space station > requires ... I worked in production engineering and I know these > aren't the sort of things that one can just knock up in a > backyards workshop, they need high technology factories even to > produce small quantities. We might argue that all the high tech > components were brought from earth but Cherryh specifically says > in those timelines on her website the only thing brought out was > "biostuffs". Here I think one has to assume that they brought the stuff from earth (and Cherryh made a mistake in denying it ) and when they started developing subsitutes on the stations they used the type of "home manufacturing" we see in Japan to manufacture a small range of standardised components (something which is happening here too). You know, have only 10 sizes of one general type of hydraulic actuator, a narrow range of ics and so on. A sort of RISC in components . > The stuff they sent back to earth was the "surplus of its ores" so > from the start the stations had to mine more than it required for > building so that it could make money by selling the excess. What > sort of metals could they possibly find that were so valuable that > it was cheaper to mine them on an extrasolar planet and send them > all the way back taking (at first) many years to do so? Firstly some of the ships were large (like the Nostromo in _Alien_) functioning much as ore carriers do today so they'd be carrying metals smelted out of meteorites etc. We also know that ships were containerised (although the containers in _Tripoint_ seem too small for ecnomical handling). What worries me is how they predicted the markets - imagine sending a cargo towards earth starting in the equivalent of the high metal prices of 1967-69 and having it arrive when metal prices have gone through the floor as in 1975-76. > The more I think about what Maryelizabeth said the more I realise that we > have accept that Cherryh's science and technology was poor and, as > Maryelizabeth said, we have to just get past the major flaws and talk > about the good stuff. Of course this means, Mike, that some of what you > said in the quote is a lot of ... You've just seen me weaseling away trying to paper over some of the flaws but I've got to admit that AJ's and my discussions on Cherryh's universe contain large elements of "revisionism" and this applies with equal force to almost everyone else I've spoken to. But that's a lot of the fun! I'm not sure what you mean by "..." but I'm going to take it as a complement . Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:35:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Keith Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990620111610.0072047c@together.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Janice E. Dawley wrote: > > But seriously, folks. I don't see that what I have written in any of my > messages is particularly offensive to those who really want to discuss > feminist science fiction AS feminist science fiction. That was what this > list was created for. Sadly, it seems to have veered off course in the last > couple of months. Unless all those lurkers (I know you are out there!) step > in to turn things around, I'm afraid it will continue in this vein > indefinitely. That's too bad because this used to be a stimulating feminist > space that I really enjoyed being a part of. As it is, I may soon be > following Robin's lead and unsubscribing. > I haven't been able to find any except one British newspaper's gloating and slanted article on this, so am waiting to forward any articles until I can, but this discussion reminds me very much of the reason Mary Daly fought so hard to keep her course in feminist theory female-only at Boston College. Boston College was recently awarded the right to involuntarily "retire" this tenured profesor by invoking Title IX's equal access to education provision in a U.S. district court. The college is run and owned by the Jesuit order of the Catholic religion, an orginazition that by any standards used for applying the same terms for race, is minority governed and male supremist. The boy who demanded entrance to the class had had no prior interest in feminism and was admittedly "not a feminist". A principle reason Mary Daley insisted on keeping the class women-only was that her experience showed that male students consumed a disproportionate share of class time, both by their own behavior and because the female students spent a great deal of time trying to explain and justify basic concepts to them and trying to make sure they weren't offended by the class material. Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:09:48 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Parenthetically, I don't think all of Atwood's villains are cardboard. In Handmaid's Tale they certainly are, but I think that's the style the novel is written in...it's not, to me, a novel that's very long on character development. Even the heroine goes from....doubting herself to....not doubting herself. Whoo. Radical transformation. I always felt that the charms of Handmaid's Tale are more the charms of the horror story, a sort of more literary version of Flowers In the Attic--we look to see the terrible details of the society, not to learn subtle truths. It's one of those books that's gripping without being (to my mind) especially literary. But that's ok. I think the book is interesting and accessible to a lot of people who don't read more fancy stuff, rather like The World According To Garp or Steven King novels---where the highbrow and the lowbrow can kiss and commingle. And consider--many of her earlier "concept" novels are kind of like that--think of the Edib! le Woman, which is a fantastic book. Almost all the characters are somewhat cartoonish, but the concepts in the book ("Moose! Moose Beer! Extra-heady! Rough and ready!...sex in the bathtub! the plot to ensnare the oafish Len! Fish! One could write a whole chapter in praise of Fish....) Anyway, the cartoonish characters are vivid and memorable, kind of baroque embroidery on the story. The point of the story (woman consumed by impending marriage to sinister corporate fellow) would be really, really heavy-handed if it were written in a fully rounded fashion, unless it were written as a tragedy a la Portrait of a Lady, and that's not what Atwood is aiming at. It's a funny, and a really catchy funny, but it's not long on characters. Which leads me to digress--I think we need to be careful to talk in clear terms about what exactly we expect a novel to do...not all novels need or aim at downright Emma-esque character development. Orwell, in fact, points out that most of Dickens's characters in his earlier books would be really silly if you attempted to explain them--try to present Mrs. Jellyby or the childlike naif who runs out on his debts and his family in Bleak House as rounded characters--where would we be? Flat as they are, they are utterly damning. We could make up an explanation for Mrs. Jellyby, a backstory, we could render her sympathetic. But then we'd have an entirely different novel, even if it was a very good novel. Anyway, I did want to add that the villains of, for example, Cat's Eye, are very rounded out, fully developed and ambiguous. What really motivates Cordelia, and how much does the narrator really understand? How much of her enmity for her childhood friend comes only from her own beliefs about her childhood? And Josef--pretty creepy in a lot of ways, but Atwood explores his past and his escape from Hungary. Sure, he's a sort of Kundera-esque chaser and jerk, but it's clear that there's more to him than the narrator knows. This, I add, is because what Atwood is trying to do in this novel is entirely different from what she's aiming at in Handmaid's Tale, a novel I actually like very much. >>> "S.M. Stirling" 06/20/99 06:49PM >>> Atwood is what we Canuks call a "Can-Lit" academic type -- horrified to be associated with anything as crass, coarse and vulgar as mere _science fiction_. She writes real lit'rachure, you see. Not that rubbishy stuff people read for mere entertainment. THE HANDMAID'S TALE is a not-bad SF novel, actually. The characterization and prose style are usually very good, although like most authors Atwood has a hard time getting inside the head of people she dislikes -- her villains tend to the cardboard. And like most mainstreamers who venture into genre she has a tendency to re-invent the wheel without realizing it, doing things that were standard in the SF field 40 years ago and thinking she's original. But on the whole, it's quite good. I certainly enjoyed it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:40:37 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: Atwood, and Handmaid's Tale Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On a more uplifting note....has anyone read Mary Gentle's White Crow books? I've made my way through an absurdly overpriced copy of the collection with Beggars In Satin in it, much of Rats and Gargoyles, and the absolutely brilliant Architecture of Desire. Unfortunately, I read AoD first, and have been vaguely disappoinrted with the others, although they're quite good. AoD is, like Swordspoint, one of those books with complex, slightly underexplained plots that you have to figure out yourself. And I really admire the feeling the book creates...in all these books, Mary Gentle seems to be able to create a world whose details you can fill in yourself. Rather like Tolkien--what he describes gives you confidence that the rest of it is there, even when he doesn't say so. I also admire her descriptions of people--unlike just about everyone from Sherri Tepper on, she doesn't evaluate looks---"X was graceful and beautiful with large hazel eyes, etc ad nauseum". She says that a character is a small woman with red hair, or a big man with green eyes, and so on. I like this because it allows you to envision the characters as regular people. I have a very clear picture of the White Crow, for example, that I don't have to correct every few minutes when I remember that she is beautiful as the day or something. (Like that improbable woman in the otherwise terrific post-apocalyptic Paul Auster novella) And too, if I wanted to I could imagine all the characters as if they were indeed beautiful as the day. Now, a ticklish subject (not the new Zizek book, no...) While I admire this Gentle-ish understated form of feminist fantasy/sf very much, I find it rather distressing to see books like Joanna Russ's characterized as "yelling at men for being men", and so as inferior, strident, etc. It's rather ironic that if I point out, in my everyday life, to my allegedly feminist male friends, that a movie or book has no non-slutty, non-34DD women characters in it, or that the ad-poster for the new Pavement album makes one reflect on Irigary's contention that women's bodies are a form of currency and is incredibly offensive to boot--to continue, I find it ironic that if I say these things I am called a killjoy, after all, "it's just a story, it's just pop culture, can't you have any fun?" But should any man read any woman's story, no matter how intelligent and well-argued the story may be, there had damn well better be at least a majority of sympathetic white straight men characters, plu! s a clear articulation of the fact that the author is not a hairy legged non-make-up wearing ballbreaker dyke and she reallly likes men...there had damn well better be this inclusion, or the story is strident, no good, counterproductive, too radical, not funny, no one could possible like it unless they were a hairy-legged ballbreaking etc etc.... I am reminded of a Joanna Russ quote, in fact " A beautiful chick in a raintight shirt who balls with her friends but doesn't get uptight about it, that's the real thing". Or, you can be as feminist as you want as long as you're young, cute, straight, and never speak above a whisper. Not every book has to conform to every agenda. Not every book is for every person. There is no master social theory that all books come together to support. Not every book will make you comfortable and happy--remember that old saw about how a good minister would preach to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? I don't expect Toni Morrison to include a sympathetic, reformist slaveholder in Beloved just so that I can feel at ease; part of the point of that book is to cause me dis-ease, to cause me to examine my conscience and change my actions. This is part of why I read. There are things I read when I want a warm bath, but life is not a series of warm baths. Too, I am not my race--when I read of a racist white character, I examine my actions--am I like this person? Am I improving? Am I totally different from this person? And, since I am not so invested in white-black binary power structures that I feel I must identify with every white character in the world, sometimes I let myself off the hook. One question, in fact, that comes to mind is why men can't read feminist novels and identify with the heroines? Surely most men who read women's sf must be able to translate the experience of oppression into something relevant to their own lives. Anyway, as much as I feel that the mild and understated feminism of Mary Gentle is a wonderful thing, I also feel that there is a definite place and purpose for those other novels. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:36:00 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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed On 21 Jun 99, at 6:35, Keith wrote: >A principle reason Mary Daley insisted on keeping the >class women-only was that her experience showed that male students consumed >a disproportionate share of >class time, both by their own behavior and because >the female students spent a great deal of time trying to explain and >justify basic concepts to >them and trying to make sure they weren't offended by the class material. The comments in your note are clearly aimed at Margery Kempe and myself. I am replying for both of us. Our objections to what Janice E Dawley said stem from what is harrassment of a kind that the list owner stated specifically and unambiguously on 1st May would not be tolerated. Further she was equally adamant about discussions of feminism itself, writing "To be brief, if you want to engage in a discussion of feminism, take it OFF LIST. There is nothing surer to create flame-wars than 'what is a feminist' 'you are' and 'you aren't'". We have been over-meticulously careful to to stick to Laura's instruction because we believe it is both a good idea and imperative to avoid disruptive clashes. To ensure that this rule is not breached and to avoid this type of harrassment, which your own posting is an example of, we have even taken feminist discussions of Slow River, The Blue Place and now Vonda N McIntyre's Starfarers series offlist. This has left the list poorer. I have already noted earlier that harrassment like this is the reason why I would not join the on topic list. Margery agrees. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:14:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Michelle Warner Subject: Re: No censureship talk about the work MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Okay, folks. I've been on this list only two weeks and I'm tired of this stuff already. I am working on my MA is feminist science fiction specifically, Sheri Tepper particularly. I joined this list to engage in intelligent, interesting, HONEST conversation about feminist science fiction. However, there does not seem to be alot of that going on. There seems to be a whole lot of "if you don't share my opinion, you're flaming me" going on. Argument and differing opinions are what makes the discussions. If everybody agreed, this would be the Stepford listserv. Everybody is,like, stop disagreeing with me or I'll take my marbles and go home. I some cases, as with Mike, he was upset by what I said in an email and felt the conversation was going in a direction he didn't want to participate in, so he said so and changed the subject. Absolutly the responsible thing to do. Its just like TV. If its showing something you don't want to watch, change the channel. Other people might want to remain tuned in. Telling people what you think in an honest way is not flaming, its intellectual freedom, which we should value. Sometimes the discussions get heated. It happens. I didn't say anything personal about anybody, I talked about Russ, the suject under discussion, suggested a couple of books. Why is that flaming? Michelle > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at > http://www.hotmail.com > === Ah, Lesbians. Yummmy. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:33:55 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Value of the FEMSF list / Russ #s MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just wanted to note that two recent posts of particular interest to me which I valued and appreciated were Lori's link to the article on women scientists in fiction, and Margery's thoughtful discussion of DOWNBELOW STATION. Mike, thanks for your faith in me, but I have no guess to the # of copies of WAWFF. Most of my experience is print runs is, logically enough, with fiction titles. Pax, 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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:38:54 -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: Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton In-Reply-To: <19990621163601.41661.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:36 PM 6/21/99 CEST, Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >Our objections to what Janice E Dawley said stem >from what is harrassment of a kind that the list owner stated specifically >and unambiguously on 1st May would not be tolerated. Further she was equally >adamant about discussions of feminism itself, writing "To be brief, if you >want to engage in a discussion of feminism, take it OFF LIST. There is >nothing surer to create flame-wars than 'what is a feminist' 'you are' and >'you aren't'". The list guidelines state: "Discussion of feminism, as it pertains to literature or particular works of literature, is perfectly appropriate." I asked Mike a question pertaining to his interest in *feminist sf literature*. What I was hoping for was some discussion about what distinctive features of feminist sf lead him to seek it out as a category of literature. How that is harassment is beyond me. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: The *Velvet Goldmine* Soundtrack "...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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:51:14 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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mike Stanton wrote: >Cherryh's problem (I think) is that she didn't research her >first books in adequate depth because she was caught >up in the grand view of events. Later when she'd had time to think it out, >she was too committed by _Downbelow >Station_ to change. In the preamble to _Hellburner_, she describes all too >briefly how she laid out her future >history and this shows up very clearly the weaknesses in her method. When I first read Downbelow Station (about 1985) I wondered what she was going to do for an encore, it all seemed so complete. I don't remember the Hellburner piece too well, but isn't that the part where she made the famous "foundational" discoveries remark? I copied it to my quotes dbase but forgot to enter the book name. She said "So I spun off a computer listing from about 2000 to about 5000 A>D>, figuring this might give me plenty of room, decided on a few foundational (and, I believe, likely) discoveries in the sciences and began working out how long it would take for social and political changes to result". Mike, I'll get my housekeeper to get all the Cherryh books out of storage tomorrow so there's no further "ambiguity". >In some ways, Anne McCaffrey had the same problem - >_Partnership_ is a very good example. You're obviously talking about all the advanced computer chips an entire civilisation requires being manufactured on one world by a few convicts. That's the sort of thing that destroys one's faith in a writer's knowledge of our own civilisation, let alone inventing a viable future one. I don't think Cherryh's even close to being that bad. >Her economics also contains elements of this. But closed systems >have worked / are working on earth, and once a significant population >develops in space or on a planet, the problem vanishes. > As I see it, >_Downbelow Station_ lies at the point where the problem is about to vanish >. It's the very short time span that it takes in her universe to build >up this critical population level that troubles me. The notes on her website time line explain this much more clearly than the first chapter. She says "Mission plans now call for three small station units with beam-extrusion and mining capacity, with heavy manufacture units to follow, on the pattern of thriving Sol, giving the starstations the capacity to replace their units and to repair and construct pusher engines with shipment of basic engine modules from Earth. This will entail in-system shuttles and in-system pushers to mine and construct, but this technology is fully developed at Sol and there is nothing new to develop here". So a lot of Mike's and Margery's objections go out of the window. *I know* we agreed we wouldn't use external material written much later than the book to explain problems, but in this case the timeline has Cherryh's approval and it contradicts nothing in the book. >Here I think you're wrong in several ways. She implies in the first >chapter ("no need for even a moderate sun-type star...just the solar wind >and the usual debris of metals, rock and ice") that what station builders needed could be obtained in space. Providing >great heat in space wouldn't be that difficult where, say, very light solar >mirrors kilometres in diameter to heat solar furnaces could be build. Some early sf books (unfortunately can't think of a name) used the same idea ... I remember one about mining metals on the moon by using a parabolic mirror to melt metal in surface deposits. There used to be (maybe still is) a "solar furnace" for generating power somewhere in southern France which I remember seeing when on holiday with my parents as a child. >Here I think one has to assume that they brought the stuff from earth (and >Cherryh made a mistake in denying it ) and when they started developing >subsitutes on the stations they used the type of "home manufacturing" we >see in Japan to manufacture a small range of standardised components >(something which is happening here too). You know, have only 10 sizes of >one general type of hydraulic actuator, a narrow range of ics and so on. A >sort of RISC in components . Cherryh seems to have admitted "mistakes" by the slightly different "history" in her website listings. >Firstly some of the ships were large (like the Nostromo in _Alien_) >functioning much as ore carriers do today so they'd be carrying metals >smelted out of meteorites etc. We also know that ships were containerised >(although the containers in _Tripoint_ seem too small for ecnomical >handling). I remember reading (I think also in Hellburner) that the ships were so large that some of them were really villages with watches or "shifts" with a sort of hierarchy of captains. The crews were matrilineal but not matriarchal. One expects warships to have a large crew both for fighting the ship and as "marines" for use in combat on stations or planets but I've always thought the merchanter crews were MUCH larger than necessary for proper running of the ships and I've wondered what the crewmen did all the time. I've been on trips with VLCCs and that had a very small crew comparatively speaking. The crew of the Nostromo in Alien seemed to me to be about exactly the right size compared to VLCCs, ore carriers or Ro-Ro and containerised ships (my husband's family is in shipping so I've got some idea of the business). >What worries me is how they predicted the markets - imagine >sending a cargo towards earth starting in the equivalent of the high metal >prices of 1967-69 and having it arrive when metal prices have gone through >the floor as in 1975-76. It's a lot worse than that at the beginning. The trip was 7-11 years one way. If you look at the routes on COLONIZE.CHV a round trip of the stations would have taken the best part of a century ... even if you could solve the travelling salesman problem . >You've just seen me weaseling away trying to paper over some of the flaws >but I've got to admit that AJ's and my discussions on Cherryh's universe >contain large elements of "revisionism" and this applies with equal force >to almost everyone else I've spoken to. But that's a lot of the fun! A big flaw that you didn't point out is how science in her universe produces lots of inventions in the first few centuries but slows down remarkably thereafter. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:42:35 -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: Viewpoint and Mary Gentle In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:40 AM 6/21/99 -0500, Jane Franklin wrote: >One question, in fact, that comes to mind is why men can't read >feminist novels and identify with the heroines? Surely most men >who read women's sf must be able to translate the experience of >oppression into something relevant to their own lives. Yes, I think the transformative power of literature is partly its ability to put you in another person's head and sympathize with the "other". Our society still tells men that it is not appropriate to identify with women, though, so I think it is considerably less common for men to slip into that "other" role than it is for women to imagine themselves as male protagonists. >Anyway, as much as I feel that the mild and understated feminism >of Mary Gentle is a wonderful thing, I also feel that there is a definite >place and purpose for those other novels. Agreed. I think there is something freeing and reassuring about reading of a future where one's present day beliefs, so often criticised or contradicted, are taken for granted. (I have not read the books in question. Can you give some examples of her understated feminism?) I see this sense of hope and comfort as a reassurance and a motivator in the struggle to reach the future we so admire, a struggle that is more directly engaged in other works. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: The *Velvet Goldmine* Soundtrack "...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: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:02:39 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ianthe Subject: Re: Tepper's characters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" *her eyes are wide* I'm a big Tepper fan, and I'd never actually noticed, but you're very right. Teppers characters are beautiful interesting-looking people... Look at Pamra Don in *the Awakeners* and Olly in *Plague of Angels* they are both beautiful women who have men who are smitten with them, even Fringe, who is a dear, sad soul in her existential yearnings(heh) grows up to have her rats-tails grow out, her skin clear up and so on and so forth, becoming a very attractive woman, who is also persued by a man... It is suddenly clear to me that this is a recurring thing with her characters... >I also admire her descriptions of people--unlike just about everyone from Sherri Tepper on, she doesn't evaluate looks---"X was graceful and beautiful with large hazel eyes, etc ad nauseum". She says that a character is a small woman with red hair, or a big man with green eyes, and so on. I like this because it allows you to envision the characters as regular people. I have a very clear picture of the White Crow, for example, that I don't have to correct every few minutes when I remember that she is beautiful as the day or something. (Like that improbable woman in the otherwise terrific post-apocalyptic Paul Auster novella) And too, if I wanted to I could imagine all the characters as if they were indeed beautiful as the day. _____ Jenn She's the glorious Undercoat of this painted world... ...you see, It comes through, no matter how much of our whiteness We paint over it. - The Lady's Not For Burning _____