From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Fri Sep 10 19:37:03 1999 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:48:24 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at University of Illinois at Chicago (1.8c)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG9907D" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:21:05 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: pot pourri MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After an entire digest on the mysterious whereabouts of the Cherryh discussion started on this list, I thought I'd see if I could get anyone interested in continuing to discuss Cherryh's works to pipe up here. Don't worry about waiting for others, jump right in! Personally, it's a very busy time, or I'd have a more elaborate contribution, but I will note briefly my fave reads have been RIMRUNNERS and TRIPOINT. Also, I'll have a chance to see both Amy Thomson and Chip Delany in August! Kewl! Sharon: Any info from your lesbians list on Theo's character in the remake of "The Haunting"? 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: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:53:53 -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: THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE (after Hart) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Having just reread THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE by Shirley Jackson (the source of both the '63 and '99 films THE HAUNTING, of course), I was struck by how comparatively rare an fairly rounded portrayal of a lesbian is in most fiction (and while the character was slighted some in the film, she was far from the freak almost all 1963 film lesbians, or most lesbians up through to the very recent past, have been. Having seen the '63 film much more recently (two years ago, after having seen the first time five years before that) than my first go through the book (about twenty years ago), I was struck also by how much more brittle Theo is in the film, and definitely how much Eleanor seems more frantic (although the film is pretty faithful in most respects, deviating notably at the end). It also struck me as interesting that the book was published the same year as PSYCHO, by Robert Bloch, which in some ways has a similar feel (although the Bloch is more hardboiled, certainly, the Jackson more discursive), and even some faintly similar incidents...most obviously Marion Crane and Eleanor's furtive car journeys, only to arrive at such happy destinations as the Bates Motel and Hill House. Both novels are also brief (is brevity the soul of being scared out of one's wits?--please excuse), a relief in many ways after too many post-King and -Ludlum bloated bugcrusher horror/suspense novels. As I noted on the Indiana U Horror list, if they start handing out retro-Stokers for best horror and psychological suspense before the foundation of HWA, I think we know a likely tie for 1959. They would've made a superlative late Ace double. And now they both have (what will probably turn out to be) meretricious remakes of their first film versions! -----Original Message----- From: Maryelizabeth Hart [mailto:mystgalaxy@ax.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 4:21 PM After an entire digest on the mysterious whereabouts of the Cherryh discussion started on this list, I thought I'd see if I could get anyone interested in continuing to discuss Cherryh's works to pipe up here. Don't worry about waiting for others, jump right in! Sharon: Any info from your lesbians list on Theo's character in the remake of "The Haunting"? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:30:13 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Stanley Kubrick films on TCM, late notice but still in time for s ome Comments: To: "horror@indiana.edu" , Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT , SCIENCEFICTION-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Tonight on Turner Classic Movies, a fairly-well distributed (usually) basic cable service that features no sponsor-ads as such, the second day of their EYES WIDE SHUT/death-inspired Kubrick festival is on starting at 8pm ET: letterboxed presentations of LOLITA, DR. STRANGELOVE (at 11 pm ET), and 2001 (at 1 am ET, and followed at 3:30 am by 2010). Sorry I didn't get around to warning you all about yesterday's presentation of PATHS OF GLORY, KILLER'S KISS, THE KILLING, and SPARTACUS. But then, I don't get TCM, myself, and am bitter. (Nor Skiffy, nor Comedy Central, nor even ESPN 2 and thus missed most of the women's soccer tournament...I know, I can barely contain my own tears as I write...). ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:36:10 -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: pot pourri Comments: To: Maryelizabeth Hart In-Reply-To: <37962BB1.73A7@ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > After an entire digest on the mysterious whereabouts of the Cherryh > discussion started on this list, I thought I'd see if I could get anyone > interested in continuing to discuss Cherryh's works to pipe up here. > Don't worry about waiting for others, jump right in! > > Personally, it's a very busy time, or I'd have a more elaborate > contribution, but I will note briefly my fave reads have been RIMRUNNERS > and TRIPOINT. I am not sure I care very much for TRIPOINT (I don't like Cherryh's misunderstood sensitive guys very much). But I DO like RIMRUNNERS. Bet is magnificent. I am rather bitter about the fact that it has gone out of print, as I like to teach it in my sf class (upper-year, not compulsory). In addition to provoking some astonishingly ferocious discussion on Bet's alleged promiscuity, officer brutality, and why anybody would scrub a deck by hand, it also works as a very good counterpoint to Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS in terms of life in the future military. ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:37:23 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Cherryh/Hill House Comments: To: SF@cdsnet.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was very much enjoying the Cherryh discussion, even though not contributing to it. In fact, I had just about decided to quit this list when the Cherryh topic got started, and changed my mind. I would like whoever posted the chronology of her universe to please send me a copy, because I accidentally deleted it before saving. As for my favorite books, I suppose I'd have to say the Mri books...although 40,000 in Gehenna and Cyteen are very close runners up. I would Like to see the Cherryh discussion resume. As for Hill House, I Don't Like Horror. I. DON'T. LIKE. IT. As much as possible, I avoid it. This includes reading it, seeing it, eavesdropping on people discussing it, passing the racks in the bookstore, lingering on the wrong channel when using the TV clicker, etc. So I don't know the character you asked about, Mary Elizabeth, and if anyone is discussing it, and mentioned "Hill House" in the same paragraph, I most likely deleted the message without reading further. Sorry I can't be of help. I haven't said so before....but if we're taking votes about whether or not to discuss Emma Bull, I vote yes. ---s ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:59:07 -0800 Reply-To: shander@cdsnet.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Cherryh/Hill House MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was very much enjoying the Cherryh discussion, even though not contributing to it. In fact, I had just about decided to quit this list when the Cherryh topic got started, and changed my mind. I would like whoever posted the chronology of her universe to please send me a copy, because I accidentally deleted it before saving. As for my favorite books, I suppose I'd have to say the Mri books...although 40,000 in Gehenna and Cyteen are very close runners up. I would Like to see the Cherryh discussion resume. As for Hill House, I Don't Like Horror. I. DON'T. LIKE. IT. As much as possible, I avoid it. This includes reading it, seeing it, eavesdropping on people discussing it, passing the racks in the bookstore, lingering on the wrong channel when using the TV clicker, etc. So I don't know the character you asked about, Mary Elizabeth, and if anyone is discussing it, and mentioned "Hill House" in the same paragraph, I most likely deleted the message without reading further. Sorry I can't be of help. I haven't said so before....but if we're taking votes about whether or not to discuss Emma Bull, I vote yes. ---s ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:54:00 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Responses to Sharon, Todd and Patricia MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sharon: Todd caught my question about Theo's character, thanks for alerting me it wasn't in your realm of interest. ~~~~~~~~~ Todd: Shrill is so exactly the word for Eleanor. In the original "Haunting," she didn't so much seem disturbed as annoying. I hope she is more true to Jackson's slightly fey character in the remake. Caught part of the "making of" for the current one on HBO the other night. No answers on the characters, but it looks like most of the CGI will be fairly subtle. Much of the oppressive atmosphere of the house comes from its physical construction. ~~~~~~~~~ Patricia: The main reason I remember TRIPOINT with pleasure is the parallels between the family interactions and those of the merchant fleets, IIRC. RIMRUNNERS had such a trememdous sense of place, I really was immersed in the universe and the day to day life in space in a way few other books have provided. 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, 26 Jul 1999 14:27:32 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Stepping on the Words: A Draft Comments: To: Horror in Film and Literature , Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT Comments: cc: Virginia Ely , Melissa Holt , Tia Hamilton , Frederic Bush , Frederic Bush , Matthew Connors , Aileen Gallagher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This will almost certainly contain spoilers for HAUNTING and BLAIR WITCH. In the new, bad film version of THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE, four more or less miscast actors struggle to one degree or another with an atrocious script that takes what it wants from the first film version (notably, the horripilating setpieces) and attempts to string it all together in first half-hour or so like a line of dominoes falling over. It attempts to rush through them as if we were on the HAUNTED ride at Disneyworld or perhaps DreamWorksHell (or even a revenge drama that really should be known as THE HAUNTING 2: THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL); unfortunately this doesn't allow them to be properly grounded, hence less frightening than they would be if properly paced. The script and the film then goes off in their own, pseudocreative directions, allowing Lili Taylor to waste her considerable talent attempting to enliven a collection of plot conveniences rather even than believable neuroses, much less a character, and Eleanor is far and away the most developed character in the film. The house, unlike the house in the novel and first film, is not quite gaudy enough, oddly enough...aside from the ridiculous cherub sculptures and a few other overornate knickknacks lacks the uncomfortable excess described in the book, and which I vaguely remember littering the first film's set. OK, the rooms are prettier, and the film is not obligated to follow the novel...even though it botches what it does take from the book, and wastes Marian Seldes and Bruce Dern (the two best actors in the film, aside from Taylor) by minimizing their roles and attempting to play them for pure comedy. But the special effects are gauche in precisely the way the house is supposed to be. For me, this was effective only once (aside from such mechanical shocks as a rising skeleton or a [highly telegraphed] beheading): when we see the manifestation of Hugh Crain's ghost in the bedroom of Eleanor, when multiple hands emerge from his gaping, enormous mouth to grasp at her trapped body. Crain, who we've seen mostly as a painting-subject up to this point, looks a bit like a mugging Oliver Reed having posed for the Portrait of Dorian Grey...there's a Muppet-like quality to its attempted threat. Taylor uses more of her talent than the film deserves to demonstrate vulnerability, suggest a womanchild, and transform on a dime to a ferocious defender of abused child-ghosts, absorbing strength from absurdly refashioned backstory characters to make a pseudofeminist statement (the most risible moment of the film forces Taylor to bray, "It's all about Family!") that traduces the genuine feminist statement of the book, echoed faintly in the first film. (One of my companions called it "the most Republican film" she'd ever seen.). Liam Neeson's character is a remarkably Philistine version of a pseudoresponsible scientist (he unethically deceives his subjects, then feels really bad about it); Catherine Zeta-Jones is well-enough typecast in the role of the flashy, self-centered bi (much more "audience-friendly" than lesbian), but her bad line readings help further sink the inept script; the fourth member of the party has a very odd nose and a character that the filmmakers hope you will mistake for a Regular Guy. Luke was a shallowly but genuinely witty and politely self-pitying rake in the novel; as portrayed in the first film, he's blandly devil-may-care, but relatively quick-witted; here, he's a superannuated mall-rat. If you see this version, you may not have the first film nor the novel spoiled for you, so variant and largely incompetent as it is. But I wouldn't want to do it that way. But the most telling bit of business in the film happens in an early scene, wherein Eleanor and Theo explore the house by themselves--they frolic down hallways, including one which has a floor which is covered with a few inches of water, and has stepping stones in the shape of books (if they are supposed to be real books, they are remarkably waterproof, as they remain there a day or so later to allow a fear-driven second passage). Get it? We filmmakers use mere books as launching pads. The words are merely what gets stepped on while we make our pretty images. This is one of the most blatantly honest visual statement of the typical moron filmmaker's contempt for story, logical development, and the word generally that I've ever seen. Since I haven't seen the PSYCHO remake yet, I wonder how it, too, might fit into the same sort of idiotic disregard for the text, fetishizing as it does Joseph Stefano's script not because of Stefano nor because it's from Robert Bloch's novel (Bloch reportedly gets his credit somewhere around [after?] the craft services credit) but because its the shooting script that Hitchcock used...auteurism taken to its extreme (for truly, since the director is the Author of the film, another director will make another film altogether...a rather bad one, to all accounts, with a lesser cast and no surprises to speak of). THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which made a big splash at Sundance for what are now obvious reasons (it's about the kind of kids that the Sundance attendees were or are), is by no means the scariest film I've ever seen. The often repetitious bickering the kids engage in, in fact, makes it one of the most excruciating, although that doesn't make it bad nor inconsiderable, but it does show its origins--improv. When Mike Figgis or John Cassavetes directs this kind of thing, they usually work the improvs into an eventual script, and even then it can often be somewhat off point or insufficiently finished, or take too many easy actors' choices. Having the characters rather too spontaneously attack one another, as they do, is not completely ameliorated by having them be high-strung film students, nor even (as the film does) by only showing them at whatever times the film or video cameras are rolling. Some of its virtues may have been lessened by having a more concrete script in hand, but I doubt it. But, golly, how's paying attention to scripts going to help these folks in their future careers? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:30:19 -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: Stepping on the Words: A Draft Comments: To: Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT Comments: cc: Virginia Ely , Melissa Holt , Tia Hamilton , Frederic Bush , Frederic Bush , Matthew Connors , Aileen Gallagher MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" And, of course, that should read, "(or even one based on a revenge drama that...)". -----Original Message----- From: Todd Mason Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 3:28 PM It attempts to rush through them as if we were on the HAUNTED ride at Disneyworld or perhaps DreamWorksHell (or even a revenge drama that really should be known as THE HAUNTING 2: THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL); ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:43:38 +1200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Ianthe Subject: PAMELA DEAN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Has anyone on this list read *THE DUBIOUS HILLS*? I reread it recently, and would love to hear from anyone who has read it, considering the lull that we're having at the moment *grin* or for that matter, *Tam Lin* or *Juniper, Gentian and Rosemary*, which seems to be young adult, but one of those books that can be read at any age or level... Jenn. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:05:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marsha Valance Subject: Re: PAMELA DEAN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jenn, I've read all 3, and found TAM LIN and JUNIPER, GENTIAN, & ROSEMARY more satisfying than THE DUBIOUS HILLS. In addition to credible characters and good plotting, both books bring their settings--Carleton College & the Twin Cities--vividly alive. My nieces enjoy fantasy, and I gave copies of both to the 15-year-old, with instructions to allow her 13-year-old sister to read them. I find Pamela Dean an excellent writer of tantasy. Marsha J. Valance Regional Librarian Wisconsin Regional Library f/t Blind & Physically Handicapped 813 West Wells Street Milwaukee, Wi 53233-1436 Phone: 414/286-3010 FAX: 414/286-3102 Email: "That All May Read" >>> Ianthe 07/27 1:43 AM >>> Has anyone on this list read *THE DUBIOUS HILLS*? I reread it recently, and would love to hear from anyone who has read it, considering the lull that we're having at the moment *grin* or for that matter, *Tam Lin* or *Juniper, Gentian and Rosemary*, which seems to be young adult, but one of those books that can be read at any age or level... Jenn. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 03:44:28 +0000 Reply-To: mystgalaxy@ax.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: Spreading the Word MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Todd: Thanks for the post about THE HAUNTING and BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. Should have feedback on BWP on Friday, if our attempt to see it Thurs PM is successful. Maryelizabeth pleased my 13 year old daughter has WE HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN THE CASTLE as her bathroom reading material -- *********************************************************************** 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: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:07:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Todd Mason Subject: Maxfield Parrish retrospective, at the Philadelphia Academy of th e Arts Comments: To: "horror@listserv.indiana.edu" Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list SF-LIT , SCIENCEFICTION-L@listserv.indiana.edu, Tia Hamilton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In Philadelphia through September, then traveling throughout the Northeastern US. His work was everywhere during his life, so much so that everyone reading this may well have seen some of it somewhere, either from the time or in more recent reprints. "Daybreak" sits in an alcove that includes some of Parrish's other most widely-circulated lithographic images; the gender ambiguity of his work is highlighted (as a young adolescent, it was clear to me that "Daybreak" showed a young adolescent male, nude, standing over a young adolescent female, lightly clothed, smiling up at him, presumably after some sexual engagement, though one could see it as, supposedly conversely, "innocent"). Seeing some of the body studies/photographic self-portraits Parrish made of himself so as to model his paintings, one notices that he would often transmute his own form into that of a woman (not a trick unique to him, obviously); but I noticed finally that the figure standing over the young woman in "Daybreak" might well be a girl--it is suitably androgynous. My companions who pointed this out to me suggested that this blew the probability of sexual interest out of the, so to speak, picture; I pointed out that that would imply nothing of the kind. The Academy's caption cleverly captions the paintings as "speaking to a wide variety of audiences." Aside from seeing the originals of the famous lithographs, and the Edison Mazda ads, also of interest are the early works (even before the blue and gold glazes of the later years, his fantastic art was immensely rich with color), including sketches and drawings that resemble no one's work I've seen so much as Aubrey Beardsley's, and others from such places as his chemistry notebook; some sculpture and toy carving/assembly (some of which became models for painting as well); and his remarkably landscapes, particularly from his sojourn in the US West (he was capable of anything Frederic Remington could do on canvas, from what I've seen) and his last paintings of his adopted region of New Hampshire. He was a commercial artist, if a more various and probably more accomplished one than the likes of Norman Rockwell, but this show may well be worth your time...a companion volume has been published by the Academy.