From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:36:38 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:48:11 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9906D" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:14:17 HST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Margery Kempe Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >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). I rented Alien just after we discussed it and the more I think about it the more I realise that Alien, which was made in 1979 (2 years before Downbelow Station was published) is really a much more "realistic" product. For example, the computer equipment (counting "Ash" as "equipment") is far more uptodate and it doesn't strike me as being very old fashioned in the same way that Cherryh's DOS based computers do. I saw Alien long before I read any Cherryh and immediately I read about the Merchanter ships I imagined them as looking something like the Nostromo but less "homely" if you can imagine it. n some ways Cherryh isn't *as good* at descriptive writing as some other authors like JV Jones. I've only read one of hers (I got the name from the postings on her which Sandra sent me) but I thought that A Cavern of Black Ice created such real images that I could almost see, hear and smell her characters without having to strain my imagination. Cherryh makes it more difficult for the reader who has to work her imagination a lot more. I found it impossible to sit back and relax with Downbelow Station the first time I read it because it's so complex and unwieldy that I found it easy to miss something on one page which made something further along harder to follow. I also find that often with Cherryh's books, I have to read them twice, the first time to get an idea of the storyline and the second time to enjoy the full impact of the book. Both Downbelow Station and Forty thousand in Gehenna took me three readings before I was really familar with all the twists of the plots and the dozens of subplots. I think that's the fascination with this author, the way that you have to interact with her all the way through her books. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:48:47 +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: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Margery Kempe wrote: > I think that's the fascination with this > author, the way that you have to interact > with her all the way through her books. That's very well put and summarises my own feelings so exactly. I started with _Tripoint_ never having heard or even (as I recall) seeing one of her books. But the minute I read the 10 lines of her book I was hooked: "Dream of an interface of energies above the Einstein limit. Dream of a phase storm skimming what it can't envelop - until the storm slides down, down, down the nearest gravity-pit. In this case, E. Eridani. Viking, Unionside, with ties to Pell on the Alliance side of the line. Shipyards and industry. Trade. Mining. Hydrogen glows in the bow-shock. The ship dives for theromonuclear hell. The field reshapes itself. Almost. Once. Twice. Becomes Sprite, inbound for the habitation zone". In these few "sentences" she's summed up her entire universe - its politics, its economics and its science - as questions in the mind of her reader. Her books are like treasure-houses where each new reading uncovers fresh gems. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:09:48 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: offlist discussions Comments: To: Feminist SF/Fantasy and Utopia Literature ON TOPIC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I apologize for being a slow learner. I can't believe that discussions are being taken offlist. I don't understand the point of two lists, anyway, but at least ONE of them should be for the discussion of feminist sf. It is absolutely absurd to me that feminists can't discuss feminism. Who is supposed to discuss it? This is fodder for a Vonnegut book. Or, Spinrad. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:27:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: teragram 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" Claudia 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. I would hope that if Janice intended to harass Mike (or anyone else, for that matter) she could do so a bit more effectively than that! Her original question seemed pretty innocuous to me. While Joanna Russ certainly is not - she skewers everyone, male and female alike, in a beautifully intelligent (and often wickedly funny) way. Think of 'Picnic on Paradise' - the women in it don't come off any better than the men. Alyx and Machine are the only two I'd really want to spend any time with. Or the party scene in The Female Man, where the women are sitting around playing ' Ain't it Awful' and 'His Little Girl'. For me, the lovely thing about this is that I can recognize all the games and the characters - I know these people, I've been at those parties and watched the games. It's a clear rendering of the underpinnings of 'social' life, which doesn't reflect particularly well on either the men or the women that choose these roles for themselves. Russ' female characters can be every bit as nasty, self-centered, and blind as her male characters - this is equal opportunity, folks. It's human nature. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:41:05 -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: Teragram MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: teragram [mailto:dropjohn@TOGETHER.NET] Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton Her original question seemed pretty innocuous to me. --Me, too. Russ' female characters can be every bit as nasty, self-centered, and blind as her male characters - this is equal opportunity, folks. It's human nature. --The notion that Russ is male-bashing particularly in FEMALE MAN or even very much if at all elsewhere has amused me so far. Seems to me you can find writers, including "light feminist sf writers," who actually do resent men more--I hesitate to say unfairly--than Russ, who strikes me as rather evenhanded, as "Teragram" has suggested... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:21:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: Joanna Russ: Teragram MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0D94675DAF135AEB1F4FF77B" --------------0D94675DAF135AEB1F4FF77B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Todd Mason wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: teragram [mailto:dropjohn@TOGETHER.NET] > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton > > Her original > question seemed pretty innocuous to me. > --Me, too. > > Russ' female characters can be every bit as nasty, self-centered, and blind > as her male characters - this is equal opportunity, folks. It's human > nature. > > --The notion that Russ is male-bashing particularly in FEMALE MAN or even > very much if at all elsewhere has amused me so far. Seems to me you can > find writers, including "light feminist sf writers," who actually do resent > men more--I hesitate to say unfairly--than Russ, who strikes me as rather > evenhanded, as "Teragram" has suggested... I have been "bashed" by Joanna, but I think it was more personal than gendered. I dared to make editorial suggestions concerning an essay she would present at an MLA conference. What some men see as male-bashing probably just comes from their own sensitivity (toward themselves, not toward women). I have always found The Female Man and her other fiction admirable, even delightful. I've read (and heard) her criticism but I have not read her pamphlets; even if they cut, I would defend her right to her position. This is not to say that some women are not "professional grievants," a class which seems to have expanded in the last decade or so even to include white males. I'm troubled by two attitudes of posters to this list, some that they must slice and dice each other's political positions, others that they must take literary discussions "off-list." I suppose it's not atypical of politically-based groupings (not just on the left), in which people find more to divide them than to unite them. Utopian communities are viewed as "successful" (like cancer patients) if they survive five years. How many discussion lists can make that statement? --------------0D94675DAF135AEB1F4FF77B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Todd Mason wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: teragram [mailto:dropjohn@TOGETHER.NET]
Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's influence: Stanton

 Her original
question seemed pretty innocuous to me.
--Me, too.

Russ' female characters can be every bit as nasty, self-centered, and blind
as her male characters -  this is equal opportunity, folks. It's human
nature.

--The notion that Russ is male-bashing particularly in FEMALE MAN or even
very much if at all elsewhere has amused me so far.  Seems to me you can
find writers, including "light feminist sf writers," who actually do resent
men more--I hesitate to say unfairly--than Russ, who strikes me as rather
evenhanded, as "Teragram" has suggested...


I have been "bashed" by Joanna, but I think it was more personal than gendered.  I dared to make editorial suggestions concerning an essay she would present at an MLA conference.  What some men see as male-bashing probably just comes from their own sensitivity (toward themselves, not toward women).  I have always found The Female Man and her other fiction admirable, even delightful.  I've read (and heard) her criticism but I have not read her pamphlets; even if they cut, I would defend her right to her position.

This is not to say that some women are not "professional grievants," a class which seems to have expanded in the last decade or so even to include white males.  I'm troubled by two attitudes of posters to this list, some that they must slice and dice each other's political positions, others that they must take literary discussions "off-list."  I suppose it's not atypical of politically-based groupings (not just on the left), in which people find more to divide them than to unite them.  Utopian communities are viewed as "successful" (like cancer patients) if they survive five years.  How many discussion lists can make that statement?
  --------------0D94675DAF135AEB1F4FF77B-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:10:43 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 Claudia Lyndhurst wrote: >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. Since Claudia's already cheated I'm going to go further and quote the description that Cherryh gives of setting up a human "space colony" in Foreigner. When the Phoenix goes off course humans are forced to set up a station around a planet in unknown space but because they have no easy way down to the planet's surface, Cherryh says "they mined the solar system, built the station, built an economy that could, with difficulty, build the lander to reach the planetary surface". It shows that at least in the Foreigner trilogy which was written starting 13 years after Downbelow Station, Cherryh had picked up some of the problems we discussed. The computer and communication systems are also a lot more advanced than in Downbelow Station although not, I think, as "advanced" as Alien. My brother and I were discussing the "technology" problem this afternoon and he mentioned something that I'd forgotten. Does anyone remember a set of stories by John Brunner called Interstellar Empire. He got over the problem of technology for humans etc by postualting a precursor race who just happened to have left thousands of spaceships lying about for humans to find. I think Cherryh's solution was better. I see that I'm beginning to flog a dead horse and I think we all are. Anybody object to moving on into the story? If not, as we agreed, I start off with Book 1 after Chapter 1. I know this is premature, but as I say, I go along with Claudia's idea that we should do the first book of each of the series and I think we all want to do The Pride of Chanur next but after that I'm suggesting we do Foreigner. The contrast between the atevi in Foreigner and the hisa in Downbelow Station, specially in regard to the effect of humans on their society, would make a fascinating discussion ... sort of like a failed Cortes again all conquering colonialists. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:16:54 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Revista revista (aka Periodical Thoughts) Comments: To: sf in film and literature , Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT Comments: cc: HORROR@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" EVENT HORIZON's newest piece of fiction as I write is Kim Newman's latest ANNO DRACULA sequel, a novelette: "Andy Warhol's DRACULA." These stories remain delightful in their weaving of historical (obviously including Mr. Warhola, "Drella") and more-or-less contemporaneous literary and film characters, this time around in 1978-9 in a New York City feeling the institutionalization of disco, the insurgence of British punk (as opposed to the domestic kind, less favored by tastemakers then and there, if ultimately hardier), and the emergence of AIDS and crack (readers of Newman's previous work in this vein can safely expect the puns to gush). If this is a less breathtaking performance than ANNO DRACULA, it still handily repays the reader, and I found it better than THE BLOODY RED BARON. In the UK, PS Publishing is offering a chapbook version, but I read it at www.eventhorizon.com. (The same day, I opened a 1959 issue of BEST IN CHILDRENS BOOKS and unexpectedly found an anonymously-retold "The Magic Porridge Pot" illustrated by Warhol--almost spooky, that). The lead story in DARK REGIONS AND HORROR's Spring 1999 issue, Dave Smeds's "Mom's Room," suffers for me only because it was published (and thus encountered and read) about the same time as the paperback issue of Kate Wilhelm's THE GOOD CHILDREN. Less arguably a ghost story than Wilhelm's novel, the Smeds story is very good journeyman work (apparently his 100th sale) offering a situation very much like that of CHILDREN, only here the father lives to take care of his mixed-gender brood, with (in both) the adolescent protagonist-narrator describing the devastating effects of her mother's death particularly on her sensitive youngest brother. Smeds is not (yet) a past master such as Wilhelm, but his characters act naturally under the supernatural circumstances, and it's good work. The magazine (perhaps too fannishly for general audiences?) warns its readers of the type of story they are about to read with a categorical sigil; it has a charming effect, if a bit odd. This issue also features a very short interviews with Forrest Ackerman and Robert Jordan, and thoughtful reviews. The Summer issue might already be out. Norman Spinrad, in the Books column in the July ASIMOV'S, recapitulates a lot of a discussion we were having on SF-Lit about whether sf and literarily-ambitious (or, less kindly, pretentious) literature have more points of contact than publishers and others usually give credit for, from both sides. He goes on to note something that had only peripherally been touched upon in that discussion, though it's been raised on SF in Film and Lit recently--the paucity of readers of any kind now. Spinrad argues that popular literature of all kinds (in prose) is on its way out, being snuffed mostly by television. In the course of this argument, he makes a few errors (what Algis Budrys in looking at Barry Malzberg's THE ENGINES OF THE NIGHT referred to as "citing facts which are not facts" but which could easily be replaced with the real facts, often causing the argument to be stronger in impact as well as accuracy). For example, he notes that when the pulps fell (Spinrad suggests they were shoved by television), the only surviving fiction magazines by the turn of the '60s were "true confession" titles, "one or two" crime-fiction magazines, and the sf/fantasy titles. 1960 actually saw, in addition to the "true confession" tawdry-romance titles, a smaller slew of "true men's adventure" tawdry-adventure magazines such as TRUE and SAGA, at least four "major" (at least fairly long-lived) crime fiction magazines (QUEEN'S, HITCHCOCK'S, MIKE SHAYNE, and THE SAINT) and few items in their death-throes, such as the once hugely-popular and influential MANHUNT and the Columbia magazines (DOUBLE-ACTION DETECTIVE, etc.), and Mercury Publications' MERCURY MYSTERY and perhaps BESTSELLER MYSTERY and a few other "minor" titles. Also: RANCH ROMANCES and perhaps ZANE GREY WESTERN, the commercial "little" magazine STORY, and a rather small number of speculative fiction titles: IF and GALAXY at relatively low ebbs, F&SF doing rather well after the sale of ELLERY QUEEN'S to B G Davis and his new Davis Pubs, ASTOUNDING SF making its conversion to ANALOG SCIENCE FACT>SCIENCE FICTION but publishing probably the most lifeless fiction it had up to that time, AMAZING (becoming AMAZING: FACT AND SCIENCE FICTION STORIES) and FANTASTIC SF (becoming FANTASTIC: STORIES OF IMAGINATION) still recovering after the lifeless years of Paul Fairman's editorship (wherein Harlan Ellison, Randall Garrett, Milton Lesser and Robert Silverberg essentially wrote everything in the magazine, under their names and others, and were paid for poundage) under the enthusiastic but occasionally controversial Cele Goldsmith (note the last three, published by major magazine houses Conde Nast and Ziff-Davis, received more-sophisticated titles in that year, if little or no additional marketplace support). The other sf/fantasy/horror titles of 1960 wouldn't last the year, notably FANTASTIC UNIVERSE and SCIENCE FICTION, or were mayflies which barely started, such as FEAR. Six US magazines of sf and fantasy hardly dominated the shrunken fiction-magazine market, to put it briefly, but the market was hardly a shadow of what it had been even ten years before, which is much of Spinrad's point. Spinrad also suggests that popular fiction as a whole is now losing its audience to tv; I would counterpropose that fiction and tv both are losing their audiences to the ever-increasing number of entertainment/interactive options available. Pulps' first great threat, at very least among the semiliterate audiences Spinrad cites as part of their backbone, were the comic books, which soon after their introduction handily outsold the fiction magazines (and were often published by the same people). Nowadays, not only is pop fiction not read as widely as it was, but television isn't watched as much (even if you factor in cable stations, the total audience is smaller than in 1960). Videotape, videogames, and the internet have bitten into the old audiences. Spinrad's claim that posterity will recognize that speculative fiction as the dominant fictional form of the century is probably accurate (as he includes, sensibly, sur[realist]fiction, magic realism, and presumably metafiction, etc., in the SF stew), although the notion that Thomas Mann will be seen as an inferior progenitor of Philip Dick is just for fun (I suspect). The July HARPER'S reprints from the ACTIVIST (the youth publication of the Democratic Socialists of America) an analysis of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER that sees the show as an instructive metaphor for all young anti-corporate, pro-human-rights and -social-democratic activists. While HARPER'S obviously enjoys the joke more than the subtext, I leave it to you to decide how valuable such an analysis is. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:15:24 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 6/21/99 12:36:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, clyndhurst@HOTMAIL.COM writes: > 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. > This is the second post to state that a discussion of books has "gone off-list"-yet none of those book discussions began on list. How could it have gone off-list when it was never on list? Why did it "have" to go off-list? Laura has not objected to heated discussions about books. She HAS (as have several listmembers) objected to flaming other listmembers. She has not said you can't disagree about things; she has said you can't go around calling each other names, especially rude names. The only reason for book discussions to "have" to go off list is if the discussers have decided they are going to call each other names, in which case they are probably not really discussing the books anyway. This discussion about propriety on list came about because of question that directed at Mike--a question that was probably not well-worded. The asker has admitted she was not intending what Mike took as the intention. Why is it so hard for us to accept that and move on? Mike has. He has moved on to a discussion of Cherryh's books which I am finding quite interesting. I just wish the other "book discussions" were also on list so I could follow those discussion as well. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:42:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: a few more Periodical Thoughts Comments: To: sf in film and literature , Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT Comments: cc: "HORROR@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In his July ASIMOV'S Books column, Norman Spinrad does manage to slight crime fiction and historical fiction, among others, in asserting that essentially all the best fiction published as "category" fiction (my term, not his, I think) has been speculative fiction. Certainly I would be hard-pressed to say that the crime fiction of Kate Wilhelm or Jorge Luis Borges is lesser than their SF, or that Dashiell Hammett (to cite obviously) is somehow less a writer than Robert Heinlein, despite roughly comparable importance in mystery and sf. Or, for that matter, that Carol Emshwiller, (Ms.) Lee Hoffman, or Joe Lansdale's westerns are inferior to their SF. WEIRD TALES and AMAZING STORIES are currently sporting either the same (WT) or very nearly (AS) the same logos as they did in 1939. Is this simply a reminder of how much of the past fiction magazines are at this late date? These, and ANALOG's retro-Futurist logo font introduced when Dell bought it, are handsome enough, I suppose, and respectful of tradition...but counterproductive? AMAZING joins MARY HIGGINS CLARK'S MYSTERY MAGAZINE as the only fiction magazines which are designed like most magazines today, but the slightly less busy REALMS OF FANTASY, and to a lesser extent ZOETROPE ALL-STORY and SCIENCE FICTION AGE remain handsomer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:40:42 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mike Stanton Subject: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Rumour (in the form of someone I sat next to on the plane yesterday) has it that many of the old pulp crimes, adventure and sf magazines are available on microform at "reasonable cost". Could anyone confirm this and (hopefully) supply the name and address of a source? I hesitate to seem pushy but I'm flying back to Berlin on 30/6 and won't be in the US until late August-September so this request is urgent. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:51:32 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 Margery Kempe wrote: >I see that I'm beginning to flog a dead horse and I think we all >are. Anybody object to moving on into the story? If not, as we agreed, I >start off with Book 1 after Chapter 1. Before I start though I'd like to ask a question about "refugees". On news reports about refugees, now about those from Kosovo but also ones on refugees in Asia and specially Africa, the refugees appear to be apathetic and incapable of violence of any sort. I've read lots of stories also of refugees, even those on opposite sides, working together fir mutual benefit. Cherryh shows another side ... refugees who are violent both to people within their own community and to the station personnel trying to help them (not just those from ships where something has gone wrong, but in many other cases). She shows gangs of criminals attacking their own people and setting up "puppet" authorities who they hide behind to loot and steal from their own people. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the normal inhabitants of Pell and even the Pell authorities are pretty scared of the incoming refugees. Some of the fear must come from the thought of 9000 new mouths to feed in a station which has already sufferred from the war, but most of the fear is definitely of the refugees themselves and the violence they bring with them. The only refugees I've ever seen appear just like ordinary immigrants, reasonable people attempting to make a new life for themselves. Is there anyone on the list who could tell us which is the true picture ... CNN's or Cherryh's? Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:48:23 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Suzanne Hartman Organization: ZDNet Mail (http://www.zdnetmail.com:80) Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've just joined the list although a friend of mine has been showing me some of the postings for the last year. I joined because Im a big fan of CJ Cherryh and Id like to join in the discussion rules. Are there any rules or can I just butt in. Sue Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:59:34 +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 22 Jun 99, at 21:51, Margery Kempe wrote: > The only refugees I've ever seen appear just like ordinary immigrants, > reasonable people attempting to make a new life for themselves. Is there > anyone on the list who could tell us which is the true picture ... CNN's > or Cherryh's? Margery Ost of my experience with refugees is in Africa - the worst continent for these unfortunates. But ... refugees are amongst the weak and helpless. This makes them immediate targets for abuse - from their "hosts" who are often unwilling to have them, from the charities who're supposed to help them and from criminals within their own community. They're exploited and abused, economicall, sexually (especially women and children) and political as the pawns in a cynical game. Food, money and other necessities donated by richer countries are often, perhaps usually, stolen so only a few percent reached the people who need it. Criminal gangs are generally the best organised with refugee groups and since they've often been on the run, know how to deal with adversity better than people freshly wrenched from their homes. They organise protection rackets, forced prostitution, blackmarkets, muggings, theft, hijackings, mass rape and murder. Adversity brings out both the best and worst in people. Even people who held responsible positions in pre-refugee communities can turn violent and exploitive in adversity. A very common sight is that of abandoned children, whose parents have simply had enough and abandon their responsibilities. Often the sheer despair and anguish of living in refugee camps engender terrible rages in people, who riot destroying goods and facilities they themselves need to survive. Not infrequently, they single out doctors, nurses and other health workers for attack and burn down clinics and hositals. In north Kenya I saw a group of Sudanese refugees turn in a few minutes from a peaceful (if very unhappy) bunch queuing for food into a angry mob that started stoning a UNHCR official. It's not that common but it does happen. Given the choice between Cherryh and CNN, I'd go with Cherryh. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:08:33 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 23 Jun 99, at 0:48, Suzanne Hartman wrote: >I've just joined the list although a friend of mine has been showing me >some of the postings for the last year. I joined because Im a big fan of >CJ Cherryh and Id like to join in the discussion rules. Are there any >rules or can I just butt in. No rules - just butt in. Three of us originally decided we'd use only the novels and no external stuff like explanations from Cherryh, but that was a bit silly so we've dropped it. We *are* trying to go through the book logically (both chronologically and by theme) so we don't waste time on repetition and can get on to the next book but it's up to you. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:44:14 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform: Stanton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" University Microforms used to offer the complete ASTOUNDING/ANALOG and MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION. If they expanded beyond this, I'm not yet aware of it...and I have the sense they were based at the U of Michigan, but wouldn't swear to it. Can probably tell you more by tomorrow, but a web-search will probably turn them up. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Stanton [mailto:m_stanton@POSTMASTER.CO.UK] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 3:41 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] Far OT: Pulps etc in microform Rumour (in the form of someone I sat next to on the plane yesterday) has it that many of the old pulp crimes, adventure and sf magazines are available on microform at "reasonable cost". Could anyone confirm this and (hopefully) supply the name and address of a source? I hesitate to seem pushy but I'm flying back to Berlin on 30/6 and won't be in the US until late August-September so this request is urgent. Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:04:27 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Misha Bernard Subject: Re: Joanna Russ's What are We Fighting For In-Reply-To: <80256792.00303751.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII As Todd mentioned, sales to young women have been poor. I would say that is in part as Maryelizabeth notes, the price is very high and it's not yet out in paperback. I found it through interlibrary loan and was disappointed. Not only is it somewhat daunting, but when I started to read it, it wasn't anything much that I didn't already grasp from my graduate and undergrad. courses. Granted, this is my area of interest (women's/gender studies, SF)... but I never finished her essays. I read other things newer to me after reading about half of them. Did anyone else have the feeling that Russ was either trying to make available for a different audience (SF readers) what might be considered academic ideas? misha Todd said: > particular have, I understand, been poor. All of which must make her > financial position less than A+++. Maryelizabeth said: 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... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:18:26 -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 What are We Fighting For MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Actually, the quotation attributed to me was actually from Mike Stanton. But I did get the sense that much of WHAT is indeed in part an attempt to survey the academic feminist literature for an audience that might not have easy access to the items in question. Of her nonfiction books, it's my least favorite to that extent...you might find more interesting items in (particularly) MAGIC MOMMAS, TREMBLING SISTERS, PURITANS AND PERVERTS. -----Original Message----- From: Misha Bernard [mailto:mbernar1@OSF1.GMU.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 1:04 PM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Joanna Russ's What are We Fighting For As Todd mentioned, sales to young women have been poor. I would say that is in part as Maryelizabeth notes, the price is very high and it's not yet out in paperback. I found it through interlibrary loan and was disappointed. Not only is it somewhat daunting, but when I started to read it, it wasn't anything much that I didn't already grasp from my graduate and undergrad. courses. Granted, this is my area of interest (women's/gender studies, SF)... but I never finished her essays. I read other things newer to me after reading about half of them. Did anyone else have the feeling that Russ was either trying to make available for a different audience (SF readers) what might be considered academic ideas? misha Todd said: > particular have, I understand, been poor. All of which must make her > financial position less than A+++. Maryelizabeth said: 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... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:40:13 +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: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 23 Jun 99, at 9:44, Todd Mason wrote: > University Microforms used to offer the complete > ASTOUNDING/ANALOG and MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE > FICTION. If they expanded beyond this, I'm not yet > aware of it...and I have the sense they were based > at the U of Michigan, but wouldn't swear to it. Can > probably tell you more by tomorrow, but a web-search > will probably turn them up. Thanks Todd for the start. The firm's now called UMI and is owned by Bell & Howell (URL:http://www.umi.com/). I looked at UMI's online catalog (horrible layout). But... Those people hoping to get a large collection for peanuts are in for a disappointment. Someone who's anxious to get a complete collection of, say, Astounding Science Fiction from January 1930 to January 1960 can expect to pay the princely sum of US$3223.50. It's available only in 35mm microfilm rolls and there are 15 for the period mentioned at US$214.90 per roll. Astounding, the first on my list, was the only one I looked up; in view of the problems I've been having with the comptroller of my household expenses about overspending on books, I didn't think it was worth continuing. Goodness knows what my informant must have been earning for him to regard this as "reasonably priced" . Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:02:45 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jenn mottram Subject: Re: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform In-Reply-To: <80256799.002BCA87.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I know the Special Collections department in the University of Connecticut library has a huge amount of pulp magazines. My step-mother worked there, and during summer vacations I would hole up in the stacks with these for hours and days on end. I don't know if they've microformed them or not. Jenn At 08:40 AM 6/23/99 +0100, you wrote: >Rumour (in the form of someone I sat next to on the plane yesterday) has it >that many of the old pulp crimes, adventure and sf magazines are available >on microform at "reasonable cost". Could anyone confirm this and >(hopefully) supply the name and address of a source? I hesitate to seem >pushy but I'm flying back to Berlin on 30/6 and won't be in the US until >late August-September so this request is urgent. > > >Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:54:35 -0300 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform: Stanton In-Reply-To: <80256799.00684931.00@nun.postmaster.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mike: If you just want to read through the whole lot (as I did), you can borrow them, 4 reels at a time, through Inter-Library Loan Services of a University (probably also public libraries, not sure about this), if you live in North America. Since I have borrowed ILLO stuff transatlantically, you might be able to do it from your end. ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Mike Stanton wrote: > On 23 Jun 99, at 9:44, Todd Mason wrote: > > > University Microforms used to offer the complete > > ASTOUNDING/ANALOG and MAGAZINE OF FANTASY AND SCIENCE > FICTION. If they > expanded beyond this, I'm not yet > > aware of it...and I have the sense they were based > > at the U of Michigan, but wouldn't swear to it. Can > > probably tell you more by tomorrow, but a web-search > > will probably turn them up. > > Thanks Todd for the start. The firm's now called UMI and is owned by Bell & > Howell (URL:http://www.umi.com/). I looked at UMI's online catalog > (horrible layout). But... > > Those people hoping to get a large collection for peanuts are in for a > disappointment. Someone who's anxious to get a complete collection of, say, > Astounding Science Fiction from January 1930 to January 1960 can expect to > pay the princely sum of US$3223.50. It's available only in 35mm microfilm > rolls and there are 15 for the period mentioned at US$214.90 per roll. > > Astounding, the first on my list, was the only one I looked up; in view of > the problems I've been having with the comptroller of my household expenses > about overspending on books, I didn't think it was worth continuing. > Goodness knows what my informant must have been earning for him to regard > this as "reasonably priced" . > > > > Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:21:30 +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: Far OT: Pulps etc in microform: Stanton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 23 Jun 99, at 19:54, Patricia Monk wrote: > Mike: If you just want to read through the whole lot > (as I did), you can borrow them, 4 reels at a time, > through Inter-Library Loan Services of a > University (probably also public libraries, not > sure about this), if you live in North America. > Since I have borrowed ILLO stuff transatlantically, > you might be able to do it from your end. Patricia I had the idea that I'd be able to pick up whole slices of "history" for a few hundred dollars which I could read at my leisure (probably after I retire in 10 or 12 years). I'm going to have to be a bit more focussed and try to ILL volumes that I really want to read. Once our 3 US offices are set up (by December), I think it might be a good idea to see what universities local to the offices have available and then make some arrangement to spend leisure hours there. When I saw that you'd read the whole lot, I got so d*d envious, everybody on the list must have felt a chill in the ether . Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:49:41 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_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed The hisa, or Downers" as Cherryh calls them through out most of the book, first seemed to me something that she threw in almost like a makeweight, something to pad out the book a little or to add the "aliens" which were almost mandatory in books of the early 80s. The way that Cherryh's portrayed them as (relatively) mild, inoffensive creatures apparently perfectly equipped to act as servants and laborers for the technological advanced "Terrans". Then when I was deeper into the book, I realised that Cherryh was using the Downers to form, in some ways, the main connecting link which holds the story together. The Downers were critically important in the development of Pell. As part of the trade agreement with Pell, they provided grain, fibres and other organic products which reduced dependence on trade from Earth and allowed the expansion of Pell. They provided the labor and "technological" skills that the Earthpeople lacked in the growing of food, dealing with the climate on Downbelow and in working natural products like wood. Without them, Cherryh shows plainly that the stationers - who couldn't even work on the planet unless they were wearing "breathers" to filter out toxic mold etc - would have had a much harder time and the influx of refugees would probably have destroyed Pell. They even help the stationers during the fighting on Downbelow. What did the Downers get out of it? About the same as the Carib Indians who greeted Columbus got - forced labor (albeit of a mild kind), disease and exploitation. Diseases, as Cherryh says, caught from humans were common, the Downers were impressed into work gangs and treated harshly by people like Jon Lukas. Even the much milder treatment given them by the Konstantins seems to me like exploitation, "benevolent", "paternalistic", but nonetheless exploitation. The refugees too - like illegal and unwelcome immigrants in our own societies - were treated like forced labor in many ways. Sent down to Downbelow, drafted into work which was dangerous and arduous even for the Downers who could at least breathe the air, and living in pit housing without even the vestiges of comfort. On the one hand, Cherryh praises the independent merchanters with their high ideals but on the other hand shows the same idealists building up a society based on virtual slavery and ruled by a hereditary elite - not as elitist as Cyteen, but still a society ruled by "aristocrats" without even the pretense of democracy. So many of Cherryh's societies are like this - Cyteen, Gehenna, Meroving, all those of CompactSpace etc. Even the captains of the merchanters are tyrants in petty and not so petty ways. Why is this? Is this just a writer's trick or is the strange resemblance in some ways between Cherryh's and some of Ayn Ran's writing more than just coincidence. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:16:59 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_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Margery Kempe wrote: >So many of Cherryh's societies are like this - Cyteen, Gehenna, Meroving, >all those of CompactSpace etc. Even the captains of the merchanters are >tyrants in petty and not so petty ways. Why is this? Is this just a >writer's trick or is the strange resemblance in some ways between >Cherryh's and some of Ayn Ran's writing more than just coincidence. The resemblance as you say is "in some ways" and is, I think, due to the fact that both writers consider capitalism (Ayn Rand would call this "Capitalism" to emphasise its holy nature) as the "natural state of mankind" and both apparently cast a cold hard eye on reality. That I think is where the resemblance both begins and ends. Cherryh's form of capitalism isn't the quasi-religious silliness of Rand's sacred cow. Cherryh's society is one which she sees as resulting from a "frontier" society where the "pioneers" have had to struggle hard to achieve what they had. In that type of society, efficiency is all because populations are low (but growing) and resources are minimal and have to be grown so the most effective people (who are not necessarily the type who could sell themselves the way politicians have to) must be in control. Her society simply doesn't have the resources to support political movements. As Cherryh shows though, her society gets political infighting and backstabbing anyway because as she says, "humans have throughout history been fractious and argumentative creatures to govern" (in the introduction to Hellburner). I know we all tend to laugh at Rand and her pretensions (especially the way her disciples reiterate them like mantras), but like so many other quasi-religious movements, there are hidden truths in what she says particularly in the "Objectivist" approach in which she requires humans to view the world. Where her "philosophy" (used very loosely) falls down, is in the idealistic, devout way in which she and her followers approach it. She (and they) have the objectivity of all religious fanatics - they know their way is the right one therefore it must be objective. Cherryh, on the other hand, has designed her "ideal" (in the sense of logical) society but has then "flawed" it to allow for the fact that humans beings are all flawed and often act against their own best interests out of jealousy, envy, hate or even short term greed. Rand proclaims that a man can be perfectly "objective"; Cherryh knows that his emotions and instincts make this impossible. Rand sees things in black and white (evil villains vs good heroesl); Cherryh is more (but not completely) realistic so her heroes and villains are both shades of grey with the villains being slightly darker than the others. There's another point which is similar to that which AJ and Andy pointed out in the argument about Vonda McIntyre's Starfarers (in Transition mainly) and those CP Snow novels. Cherryh's universe is strongly "scientific" (started and for a long time run by scientists. Of course her society is a frontier society and therefore cannot afford criminals, slackers and other layabouts, but I sometimes get the feeling that she includes artists, musicians etc as "layabout" and luxuries which a frontier society cannot afford. Again a similarity between Rand and Cherryh. Mike's comparison between Nancy Kress and Cherryh is I think applicable here even if, like everybody else, I don't agree with his conclusions but that's as far as we can take it. Kress is basically pessimistic (as in Brain Rose), while Cherryh is optimistic that whatever problem we get ourselves in, a bit of smart, typically human thinking and a high-tech quick fix will get us out of it. I think that is Cherryh's main theme in Downbelow Station ... whatever happens in the short term, despite setbacks and steps backward, the people of her universe are steadily advancing to a technologically bright future. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:22:37 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_: the basis of Pell society MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >in the argument about Vonda McIntyre's Starfarers (in Transition mainly) and >those CP Snow novels. As I don't recall seeing any of this I assume that this was part of the famous off-list discussion? Or maybe it was the week when I seemed to be having server problems and hiccupy deliveries. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:13:58 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_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Claudia Lyndhurst wrote >The resemblance as you say is "in some ways" and is, I think, due to the >fact that both writers consider capitalism (Ayn Rand would call this >"Capitalism" to emphasise its holy nature) as the "natural state of >mankind" and both apparently cast a cold hard eye on reality. Rand always reminds me of a woman (can't remember her name) a militant, "scientific atheist" who was always suing people. I think she disappeared, died or was murdered. She made quite a business out of being an atheist, like an atheist Tammy Bakker but less makeup, but was virtually worshipped (or thought she was worshipped) by her followers. It's a funny world where not believing in god can become a religion as noisy and publicity-seeking as television evangelism. Any sort of organization, no matter what they believe in, eventually attracts a lot of kooks with extremist ideas and views and then, if it survives at all, it either dies down into a small group of hardcore fanatics or mellows up and starts to die out that way. Ayn Rand's ideas seem to have been around a long time though because her main books were written in the 1940s and 1950s and when I was a grad school few years ago, there were still enthusiasts for her work. You could tell them because they listed to one side from the weight of The Fountainhead or Atlas shrugged which they always carried. Margery Kempe _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 03:19:04 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Suzanne Hartman Organization: ZDNet Mail (http://www.zdnetmail.com:80) Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margery wrote > What did the Downers get out of it? About the same as > the Carib Indians who greeted Columbus got - forced > labor (albeit of a mild kind), disease and > exploitation. Diseases, as Cherryh says, caught > from humans were common, the Downers were impressed into work gangs and treated harshly by people like Jon > Lukas. Even the much milder treatment given them by > the Konstantins seems to me like exploitation, > "benevolent", "paternalistic", but nonetheless > exploitation. I know sometimes its a hassle to get a book when youre writing email, but I think we should start putting in page numbers when we talk about important scenes in the book so that anyone can find the scene without sorting through the whole book. The pages will only be off by 1 or 2 for the different editions. Another thing that the hisa got from the bargain with the stationers was the chance to see their god. This doesnt seem like much to us but Cherryh built the the whole Downer culture around the sun worship because she realised that for religious people, there are rewards beyond money and position. She showed this in the reaction of Satin and Bluetooth when they were shown the true face of the sun by the Old One on p 164. Satins feelings must have been the same as a born again Christian would feel it she saw the face of God. I remember reading somewhere that the Incas and Aztecs thought at first that the Spanish Conquistadors were gods (Quetzalcoatl?) coming to see their people as Inca and Aztec legends foretold. Cherryh gave the Downers the same feeling towards the humans except that she made it much more slavish and doglike with the hisa loving the people who virtually enslaved them. Cherryh didn't stop there because on the last 2 pages, she showed that the Downers were not just helpless slaves, content to work for the humans. She had given them ambitions to travel through space and to win free of human control and to take themselves up the long path to technological civilisation. I think that Cherryh's attitude to religion are shown in the contrast between the "scientific" stationers and the religious hisa. The stationers are almost completely unconcerned by religion which plays, at least in this book and I think most of her others except Merovingan Nights, no part in the lives of humans. Even where humans do worship, religions are treated like "social" clubs with funny rites although their adherents are a lot more dangerous to each other and their neighbours than any social club. Primitive people like the hisa have religions which Cherryh implies theyll grow out of once they reach the right level of technology. I know as AJ keeps saying, we must not confuse the singer and the song, but this pattern, that truly civilised people dont have religion, is so common in Cherryh's books that I think it must be her own opinion. Sue Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:19:19 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_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Margery wrote: >Rand always reminds me of a woman (can't remember her >name) a militant,"scientific atheist" who was always suing people. I think >she disappeared,died or was murdered. Margery It was Madelyn O'Hair you're reminded of. My father, who was a missionary in Africa, met her in the late 60s when she and her organization were picketing near a missionary conference he was attending. In 1987 I asked him about her after she'd been in the news for some publicity stunt (I think she was suing God or the Holy Ghost or Reagan or the Devil). The only thing he could remember was that she had breath so bad it would stun a dragon. Claudia ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 06:22:54 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Suzanne Hartman Organization: ZDNet Mail (http://www.zdnetmail.com:80) Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margery Kempe wrote: > Rand always reminds me of a woman (can't remember her > name) a militant,"scientific atheist" who was always > suing people. I think she disappeared,died or was > murdered. She made quite a business out of being an > atheist,like an atheist Tammy Bakker but less makeup, > but was virtually worshipped (or thought she was > worshipped) by her followers. It's a funny world where > not believing in god can become a religion as noisy > and publicity-seeking as television evangelism. Madalyn O'Hair. She was involved in the action that resulted in the Supreme Court removing prayer "meetings" from schools. There's an even closer relationship with Tammy and Jim Bakker than just the "religion" because O'Hair was also ripping her organisation off. Fortunately for her, "atheists" of the sort she attracted were just as gullible and foolishly generous as those who respond to television evangelists and she was able, according to her own son, to stash away millions of dollars. She and her 2 children up and vanished one day with $500000 in gold coins. Her organization was even more peculiar than even the weirdest Christian cult because she and her son Jon were almost insane, insulting profaning and offending people on all sides and their built their organization in their own image. The organization which wasn't that big to begin with repeatedly splintered with little atheist cults springing up all over the place. Even today there are still gullible people who believe that' like Elvis, she's the greatest and that she's living in some remote country (probably Area 51) working on the final proof that God doesn't exist, although of course she'd be over 80 now. A few weeks ago there was a news report that Federal authorities believed she'd been murdered, dismembered and buried somewhere. This shows I think a weakness in Cherryh's approach. Although she allows for people's weaknesses, she makes the same mistake that many socialists do, she expects that when the chips are down people will cooperate even to their own short term disadvantage. Even her criminals cooperate with each other, as the Coledy gang did in setting up a front with Kressich to fool the stationer authorities. The gangs formed coherent units with members generally loyal to each other even though gangs on earth are never that united. She also forgets that many people are so trusting and so easily led that they'll believe anything just to get around the need to think for themselves. Cherryh would never invent characters that gullible. Sue Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:44:07 +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_: the basis of Pell society Comments: To: suzhartman@zdnetmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Suzanne Hartman wrote: > Cherryh would never invent characters that gullible. What about _Wave without a shore_? The characters in that were pretty gullible or at least able to hypnotise themselves into not seeing things that were before their very eyes. Mike Stanton (m_stantion@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:40:18 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ianthe Subject: Re: _Downbelow station_: the basis of Pell society Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sue wrote: >I remember reading somewhere that the Incas and Aztecs thought at first that the Spanish Conquistadors were gods (Quetzalcoatl?) coming to see their people as Inca and Aztec legends foretold. Cherryh gave the Downers the same feeling towards the humans except that she made it much more slavish and doglike with the hisa loving the people who virtually enslaved them. Cherryh didn't stop there because on the last 2 pages, she showed that the Downers were not just helpless slaves, content to work for the humans. This was in Orson Scott Card's *Pastwatch* I'm not sure if it happened in the real past or if it was just the historians in Pastwatch, who went back to just before Christopher Columbus and manipulated the (what would later be) Haitians. They knew that they would see their technology as magical so they impersonated Quetzalcoatl to get their help. I've only read *Finity's End* so I can't comment on it in *Downbelow Station*, but it does seem similar to how you described it. Jenn