From LISTSERV@listserv.uic.edu Fri Jan 26 13:39:43 2001 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:58:49 -0600 From: "L-Soft list server at UIC (1.8d)" To: Laura Quilter Subject: File: "FEMINISTSF LOG0004D" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:14:59 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Angela Barclay Subject: Ditto on the stats request Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hope the long week-end gave everyone the chance to sneak in a bit of fun reading. (Extra day off + Easter Chocolate + a bit of sci fi = heaven.) I just finished Tanith Lee's _The Silver Metal Lover_ and would recommend it for a fast, spicy snack and a look at an interesting mother-daughter/age-youth rivalry. I would like to ditto Erica's request for (male vs female) stats about sci fi readership . . . number of fem/sf books published or reissued . . . percentage of sci fi works to "other" published . . . as many of us on the list are both interested and/or conducting research. Perhaps stats could be posted to all members or directed to a separate section of the website ie) as nomination info. is. Angela ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:09:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Ditto on the stats request In-Reply-To: <20000424031257.DHGG13528.priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.ne t@[161.184.47.90]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:14 PM 4/23/00 +0000, Angela Barclay wrote: >Hope the long week-end gave everyone the chance to sneak in a bit of fun >reading. (Extra day off + Easter Chocolate + a bit of sci fi = heaven.) I And it's National Jellybean Day! The really nice soft ones which for some inscrutable reason have been designated by the industry as seasonal are half-price today! I got some on the way out of Minneapolis, leaving Minicon (which very well covered the time off, sf and chocolate!) Neil -- NeilRest@enteract.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:05:38 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: Ditto on the stats request In-Reply-To: <20000424031257.DHGG13528.priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net@[161.184.47.90]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 23 Apr 00, Angela Barclay wrote: > I would like to ditto Erica's request for (male vs female) stats about sci > fi readership . . . number of fem/sf books published or reissued . . . > percentage of sci fi works to "other" published . . . as many of us on the > list are both interested and/or conducting research. The only reference I know of is Bainbridge, W.S. (1982) Women in Science Fiction. Sex Roles 8 (10), 1081-1093. I've learnt of it via Laura Quilter's list. Bainbridge made a poll at the 1978 World SF Convention held in Phoenix, Arizona. 595 persons participated, 41.5% of them women. Some results: Bainbridge carried out a correlation analysis between the sex of the respondent and various types of SF literature. According to that women tend to like more than men: - feminist literature - stories in which the main character is warm and loving - stories in which the main character is sensitive and introspective Men tend to like more than women: - hard-science SF - stories in which the main character is erotic and beautiful - stories about war. There were no gender preferences detected for sword-and-sorcery and for new-wave sf. Participants were also asked to rank authors (7 point preference scale from 0 to 6). Women ranked Anne McCaffrey first (average rating 5.3). Le Guin was the female author highest rated by men on rank 10 (average rate 4.7), the second highest rate by men received Anne McCaffrey on rank 16 (4.6) followed by Marion Zimmer Bradley on rank 31 (4.3). Women ranked four female authors among the 10 most popular authors. > Perhaps stats could be posted to all members or directed to a separate > section of the website > ie) as nomination info. is. As nomination info? Please clarify. I think there are a lot of assumptions on what women write and read (within and without) SF and a summarizing page would be nice. But I've never heard of any other substantial study. Petra Petra Mayerhofer mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de -- BDG website http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:07:42 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: Research inquiry, men as feminist authors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Last week I posted a message but I've never received it via the list, so I assume it was lost. I repost part of it as I am very interested in what books by male authors list members would call feminist. My apologies for any double-posting. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Research inquiry, men as feminist authors Date sent: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:22:36 0100 On 19 Apr 00, Julieanne wrote: > As with 'feminism' itself - I don't see feminist sci-fi as an either/or > situation - with a clear line between yes and no, but a kind of grey-scale > blending across a whole range of features & characteristics, or 'elements'. Very true!!!! > As for men writing feminist sci-fi - there are a few, but not as many as > female authored ones. Perhaps as a theme, its not as interesting or > important to male authors? The ones that come first to mind, are Stephen > Leigh & David Brin for at least exploring social gender-constructs in some > of their works, and making it their primary theme. I remember that at some point I noticed that we haven't yet read any male author in the BDG and wanted to nominate some (that was when one could still nominate several books). I was curious whether they had a different point of view on feminist issues. I looked through the Tiptree winners, short and long lists but based on the comments of the jury none of the books really appealed to me. I especially remember how the comments on one of Leigh's books (long-listed) dissuaded me from buying it. I have so often heard about the little dispute around David Brin's _Glory Season_ (and details why people did/do not find it Tiptree-material) that I don't care for it any more. I have read half of _Red Mars_ by Kim Robinson (short-listed) and he quite naturally included many women as scientists, cosmonauts, engineers (I rather fondly remember one of the engineers). Evaluating it on feminist terms I would give it a light gray shade. _Coelestis_ by Paul Park I consider very interesting. There is this sympathetically presented guy who 'forces' the (genderless?) alien to accommodate his view of 'her' as a human female doll. Chilling. Most of the stories written by men in the _Flying Cups_ anthology I did not find really enlightening, of them I liked 'The Other Magpie' by R. García y Robertson best. Raphael Carter was short-listed with _The Fortunate Fall_ and was a winner with a story last year, but apparently s/he does not see hirself as a man. Another Tiptree winner was Theodore Roszak but so far I've never come beyond the first 10 pages of his book. The list of male authors short-listed for the Tiptree extends to about 15- 20. Then, of course, Samuel Delany is often cited as feminist, again someone I haven't read yet. I've never heard of the book Michael Morrison cited. In summary, I would have difficulties at the moment to list a sf book written by a man which I would put in the dark grey to black center of feminist sf, my impression is that most of the feminist books by male authors would only get a light grey shade. But that might be only because I do not know the 'right' book yet ;-). Perhaps list members care to list sf by male authors which they think feminist and why. I at least would be very interested. Petra Petra Mayerhofer mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de -- BDG website http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:37:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Question about Magic Realism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BFAECC.1AA44D80" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BFAECC.1AA44D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website = this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons = did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, = Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this = because Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or = was this based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is = known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), = I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross = referenced with Fantasy then?=20 Thanks in advance for any help. Jo Ann=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BFAECC.1AA44D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I noticed while going over = the alphabet=20 listing at the FSF & U website this afternoon that in the listing = for books=20 that for different reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science = Fiction and=20 Utopia category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted = to ask=20 is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than = Fantasy or=20 was this based on other factors as well?  I know Gabriel Marquez is = known=20 for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may = have=20 assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced = with=20 Fantasy then? 
 
Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Jo Ann
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BFAECC.1AA44D80-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:59:25 -0700 Reply-To: phoeber@attglobal.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Reeves Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4DC78ABBD9F7AF3E572CF2DB" --------------4DC78ABBD9F7AF3E572CF2DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jo Ann, My response (and I'm brand new to this list but not to magic realism) to your question(s) would be to say part of the reason for the separation is that fantasy has typically been used to refer to Lord of the Rings type work, sword and sorcery, and fairies while magic realism ( brought to the public reading eye by Mexican and South American writers) involves "typically" (and I use the word typically loosely here) magic in the form of non-Western gods and magic, the bending of reality a la Dali and Kahlo (to use a visual medium)--I think that Magic Realism is still a new area whereas Fantasy has become a standard with a lot of tropes that can either relegate it to the level of Ursula Le Guin or to the level of a D&D groupie convention, depending. Of course, then you can get into discussing the difference between fantasy and the fantastic--of which Magic Realism certainly has both. Then again, the separation may have some snob appeal for those who want to distinguish between "literary fantasy" and "geek fantasy." My humble opinions only. Phoebe Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different > reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia > category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to > ask is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than > Fantasy or was this based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel > Marquez is known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general > terms that is), I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism > cannot be cross referenced with Fantasy then? Thanks in advance for > any help. Jo Ann --------------4DC78ABBD9F7AF3E572CF2DB Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jo Ann,

My response (and I'm brand new to this list but not to magic realism) to your question(s) would be to say part of the reason for the separation is that fantasy has typically been used to refer to Lord of the Rings type work, sword and sorcery, and fairies while magic realism ( brought to the public reading eye by Mexican and South American writers) involves "typically" (and I use the word typically loosely here) magic in the form of non-Western gods and magic, the bending of reality a la Dali and Kahlo (to use a visual medium)--I think that Magic Realism is still a new area whereas Fantasy has become a standard with a lot of tropes that can either relegate it to the level of Ursula Le Guin or to the level of a D&D groupie convention, depending.

Of course, then you can get into discussing the difference between fantasy and the fantastic--of which Magic Realism certainly has both.

Then again, the separation may have some snob appeal for those who want to distinguish between "literary fantasy" and "geek fantasy."

My humble opinions only.

Phoebe

Jo Ann Rangel wrote:

I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this based on other factors as well?  I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced with Fantasy then? Thanks in advance for any help. Jo Ann
--------------4DC78ABBD9F7AF3E572CF2DB-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 18:01:36 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pike Publishing Subject: Re: Research inquiry, men as feminist authors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > ... I've never heard of the > book Michael Morrison cited. Aaaarrrgggh. Absolutely a situation at the base of many of my problems. The book is "The Evangeline Manuscript." I'd be pleased and grateful if you, and others, would take a look at http://www.pikepublishing.org and perhaps then buy it directly from Pike Publishing or from Amazon.com (if you're not boycotting that company) or from Barnes & Noble or, really, anywhere, or ask your library for it. I'll warn you now, though, religious fanatics -- especially Christian fanatics -- may be offended by the book. Feminists, though, even Christian feminists, should welcome it. > > Perhaps list members care to list sf by male authors > which they > think feminist and why. I at least would be very > interested. If I may, I'll tell you why I think "The Evangeline Manuscript" by Walker Chandler is feminist. The "star" is a strong, independent, intelligent, self-reliant person. There is no "feminist preaching," just the example of a *person* of great character who is female. Perhaps by analogy, let me paraphrase a famous, but now deceased, woman author, who praised the movie "Born Free," but lamented that Hollywood didn't make movies in which *people* were glorified, in which people were admirable and heroic. We can, I think, equally regret the absence of literature in which *women* are presented as possessing those qualities supposedly admired by most people: strength, courage, intelligence, self-reliance, independence. The survey in which men were said to prefer their heroines as beautiful and erotic (if I remember the terms correctly) seems to have omited a large segment of the male race, those of us who prefer our heroines intelligent, independent, self-reliant, and, yes, strong. At least, I hope there is a large segment of us. Michael Morrison http://www.pikepublishing.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:01:04 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism In-Reply-To: <001901bfaf06$c8e0bf20$8a8db3d1@w95s> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different > reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia > category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to > ask is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than > Fantasy or was this based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel > Marquez is known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general > terms that is), I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism > cannot be cross referenced with Fantasy then? hmm, if this is the web-site i primarily do, i have been including things that fall only under the rubric of magic realism for some time. if there is a particular page where i somehow exclude magic realism i need to revise it ... my working definitions are something like ... science fiction (stuff that could happen) alternative histories (stuff that could have happened but didn't) fantasy (stuff that never could have happened) magic realism (stuff that is almost happening) surrealism (happenstuff with a stance) fairy tales / myths / allegories / fables (stuff that never could have happened literally) utopian (stuff we take to extremis to think about other stuff) gothic horror / ghost stories (stuff that happens in our nightmares & the hours just before we wake up) > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Jo Ann > Laura Quilter lauraq@exploratorium.edu ph: 415.353.0465 / 415.561.0343 Learning Center Facilities Manager Exploratorium, San Francisco ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:11:24 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Neil Rest Subject: Re: Research inquiry, men as feminist authors In-Reply-To: <200004251208.OAA31140@cserv.usf.uni-kassel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:07 PM 4/25/00, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: >Raphael Carter was short-listed with _The Fortunate Fall_ and was >a winner with a story last year, but apparently s/he does not see >hirself as a man. Raphael is intersexual. IMNSHO, "Congenital Agenesis . . . " is intensely personal. Besides being the most screamingly funny Saharan dry humor I've ever seen. If you haven't read it, please do soonest. Raphael's website has a wonderful RAQ("Rarely Asked Questions") on intersexuality. (And incidentally, I'm not using pronouns here because Raphael very firmly not only has no preference, but it's not zir problem.) Neil Rest -- NeilRest@enteract.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:32:39 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Angela Barclay Subject: Re: Ditto on the stats request Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit ---------- >From: Petra Mayerhofer >To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Ditto on the stats request >Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2000, 2:05 PM > >Dear Petra: >Thanks for outlining the results of the Bainbridge poll. It certainly >would be interesting to see if any other/later studies validate >Bainbridge's findings. > >When I wrote "Perhaps stats could be posted to all members or directed to a >separate section of the website ie) as nomination info. is."; what I meant was that >it be set aside on a separate page, as you say. (I think I'm confused as >to the difference between our websites and pages- apologies for my techno-goof.) > >I realize, of course, that while a page of research (studies being >conducted . . . results . . . references) would be very useful to the many >academics in the group yet another page would require more administration >time for an already overworked listserve team! > >Angela > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:41:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism RE: Other Works List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was reading the screen and printing up the list on my printer when I noticed the magic realism in (), is it these works have not been reviewed yet maybe? Am just going to list here a couple of titles to show what I mean: Castillo, Ana. "So Far From God." (Is there italics in outlook btw?) -- "The Mixquiahala Letters." (magic realism) Allende, Isabel. "The House Of The Spirits." -- "The Infinite Plan." (magic realism) As usual am doing 4 things at the same time so, my apologies if I missed something already addressed. Was looking at this one entry, Out Of The Silence, (1927) by Erle Cox, I got a kick out of the description of this work, is it indeed a book that would a) make a woman the heroine for killing people of color thus b) popularizing an agenda for the said biased male of the time? And it actually got published in its time because that was what the belief system was, or am I reading too much into the book description? This is a very fascinating list you have compiled, thank you for opening my eyes to all this information. Jo Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: Laura Quilter To: Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > > I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different > > reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia > > category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to > > ask is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than > > Fantasy or was this based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel > > Marquez is known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general > > terms that is), I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism > > cannot be cross referenced with Fantasy then? > > hmm, if this is the web-site i primarily do, i have been including things > that fall only under the rubric of magic realism for some time. if there > is a particular page where i somehow exclude magic realism i need to > revise it ... > > my working definitions are something like ... > science fiction (stuff that could happen) > alternative histories (stuff that could have happened but didn't) > fantasy (stuff that never could have happened) > magic realism (stuff that is almost happening) > surrealism (happenstuff with a stance) > fairy tales / myths / allegories / fables (stuff that never could > have happened literally) > utopian (stuff we take to extremis to think about other stuff) > gothic horror / ghost stories (stuff that happens in our > nightmares & the hours just before we wake up) > > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > > > Jo Ann > > > > Laura Quilter lauraq@exploratorium.edu > ph: 415.353.0465 / 415.561.0343 > Learning Center Facilities Manager > Exploratorium, San Francisco > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:12:56 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: Question about Magic Realism In-Reply-To: <001901bfaf06$c8e0bf20$8a8db3d1@w95s> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons did not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced with Fantasy then?" Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic realism. My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your thesis and that you are more interested in why things are categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic realism at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as magic realism. Petra Petra Mayerhofer mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de -- BDG website http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:45:28 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism:RE: FSF Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hiya, No I am analysing every reference I can find that may or may not have something to do with the subject matter. A lot of roads I have searched have brought me back to Laura's pages, and it is just at this part of my investigating that I have formed questions out of what I find. I am not wanting something to be included or not included on Laura's page, am just asking the why something was put somewhere tis all. I am trying to form a working definition from all the various threads out there about what FSF is and is not. This is more for my own understanding of the subject rather than finding a thesis(from the number of replies to my inquiries for a working definition a lot of things have been handed to me to consider), as I have found a book by Robin Roberts that I am currently reading, which gives a pretty good introduction to the subject of FSF and the more I read, the more I wonder if this book is used to teach an introductory course to the subject. The book is "A New Species: Gender and Science in Science Fiction" by Robin Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1993, listed under Women's Studies/Critical Theory. I just went back to see how this book is categorized...if I was a layperson who did not know about this work, I probably would never have found it...this is bugging me more I think that there are excellent materials already in print that unless you specifically know what you are looking for, you will not find them. This is why I am very thankful for Laura's work, and all the other contributors to this field of study. I posted a question about what people think FSF is on a second mailing list consisting of writers, and the answers were very eye opening. One particular response has had me thinking these last few days. One reply was stated as follows: "Strength and dertermined spirit are equal opportunists, no matter what the story is about, no matter who is running the show in the story." This respondent went further to say that perhaps the field of FSF is more of a subject to be a historical one, moreso than a current field of importance, as its time of growth was really in the 70s during the women's movement. My question I am wondering is now, is this resistance to categorizing the subject have to do with the current environment? Where in its infancy, it was necessary to identify oneself as a believer in FSF, and today with the majority of folks understanding there is equality in society (or that there ought to be), having "labels" is not necessary as long as the point got across? The majority of my replies to my initial post were women who did not wish to be associated with the label "Feminist" yet acknowledged the importance of equality in social terms, and the need for equality in society. One more note, people are very passionate on these lists, and I have been reluctant to share much information from the people who have written to me, so I go back and forth about how much to put "out there" as some of the shorter discussions almost got out of hand and came within a smidgen of flames, so am trying to be careful how I approach people for information. I am not trying to start a riot, am trying to gather different threads of discussion. I welcome any feedback about my tact or lack of tact in solicitations of information. It is from each other we learn. Jo Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: Petra Mayerhofer To: Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons did > not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic > Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because > Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this > based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his > writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have > assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced > with Fantasy then?" > > Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel > Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this > list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in > which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic > realism. > > My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your > thesis and that you are more interested in why things are > categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for > all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic > realism at > http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm > It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) > and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as > magic realism. > > Petra > > Petra Mayerhofer > mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de > -- > BDG website > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:20:15 -0700 Reply-To: phoeber@attglobal.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Reeves Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism:RE: FSF Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jo Ann, I really appreciate your look into this area which has offered up some great book suggestions from a number of people on the list--I've copied the book titles all down and can't wait to go find them! I think in answer to your question about the resistance to categorization--it really has to do, for me, with how categorization leads to market niches, which leads to pidgeonholing the works as "all being like 'Like Water For Chocolate'" which was what I heard so many people say when I would tak to them about magic realism which is the type of writing I do--and it drove me crazy, probably because I found that movie and book to be superficial and not particularly interesting as opposed to say, Borges and his tiny short piece about Shakespeare and God. In other words, the coolness of the work gets lost in the "market toy tie-in" as it were. Phoebe Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > Hiya, > > No I am analysing every reference I can find that may or may not have > something to do with the subject matter. A lot of roads I have searched > have brought me back to Laura's pages, and it is just at this part of my > investigating that I have formed questions out of what I find. I am not > wanting something to be included or not included on Laura's page, am just > asking the why something was put somewhere tis all. I am trying to form a > working definition from all the various threads out there about what FSF is > and is not. This is more for my own understanding of the subject rather than > finding a thesis(from the number of replies to my inquiries for a working > definition a lot of things have been handed to me to consider), as I have > found a book by Robin Roberts that I am currently reading, which gives a > pretty good introduction to the subject of FSF and the more I read, the more > I wonder if this book is used to teach an introductory course to the > subject. The book is "A New Species: Gender and Science in Science Fiction" > by Robin Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1993, listed under Women's > Studies/Critical Theory. > > I just went back to see how this book is categorized...if I was a layperson > who did not know about this work, I probably would never have found > it...this is bugging me more I think that there are excellent materials > already in print that unless you specifically know what you are looking for, > you will not find them. This is why I am very thankful for Laura's work, > and all the other contributors to this field of study. > > I posted a question about what people think FSF is on a second mailing list > consisting of writers, and the answers were very eye opening. One > particular response has had me thinking these last few days. One reply was > stated as follows: "Strength and dertermined spirit are equal opportunists, > no matter what the story is about, no matter who is running the show in the > story." This respondent went further to say that perhaps the field of FSF > is more of a subject to be a historical one, moreso than a current field of > importance, as its time of growth was really in the 70s during the women's > movement. My question I am wondering is now, is this resistance to > categorizing the subject have to do with the current environment? Where in > its infancy, it was necessary to identify oneself as a believer in FSF, and > today with the majority of folks understanding there is equality in society > (or that there ought to be), having "labels" is not necessary as long as the > point got across? The majority of my replies to my initial post were women > who did not wish to be associated with the label "Feminist" yet acknowledged > the importance of equality in social terms, and the need for equality in > society. > > One more note, people are very passionate on these lists, and I have been > reluctant to share much information from the people who have written to me, > so I go back and forth about how much to put "out there" as some of the > shorter discussions almost got out of hand and came within a smidgen of > flames, so am trying to be careful how I approach people for information. I > am not trying to start a riot, am trying to gather different threads of > discussion. I welcome any feedback about my tact or lack of tact in > solicitations of information. It is from each other we learn. > > Jo Ann > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Petra Mayerhofer > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:12 AM > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > > > On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons > did > > not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic > > Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because > > Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this > > based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his > > writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have > > assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced > > with Fantasy then?" > > > > Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel > > Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this > > list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in > > which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic > > realism. > > > > My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your > > thesis and that you are more interested in why things are > > categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for > > all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic > > realism at > > http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm > > It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) > > and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as > > magic realism. > > > > Petra > > > > Petra Mayerhofer > > mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de > > -- > > BDG website > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:26:38 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Laura Quilter Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism:RE: FSF Questions In-Reply-To: <00d301bfafc8$bdd77fc0$8a8db3d1@w95s> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII okay, now i get it. regarding my web pages this is what i do. if i have a reviewer (including myself) who thinks a work qualifies as "feminist" and "speculative" (both of which I define broadly) then a work gets listed in the full bibliography. if it has just been referred for consideration, or nobody who works on the web pages has vouched for it and/or reviewed it, then it goes to the OTHER page for further consideration. the criteria in question is usually feminism, not its fantasy/spec-fic status. i'll try to make this clearer in the web page in question. On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > Hiya, > > No I am analysing every reference I can find that may or may not have > something to do with the subject matter. A lot of roads I have searched > have brought me back to Laura's pages, and it is just at this part of my > investigating that I have formed questions out of what I find. I am not > wanting something to be included or not included on Laura's page, am just > asking the why something was put somewhere tis all. I am trying to form a > working definition from all the various threads out there about what FSF is > and is not. This is more for my own understanding of the subject rather than > finding a thesis(from the number of replies to my inquiries for a working > definition a lot of things have been handed to me to consider), as I have > found a book by Robin Roberts that I am currently reading, which gives a > pretty good introduction to the subject of FSF and the more I read, the more > I wonder if this book is used to teach an introductory course to the > subject. The book is "A New Species: Gender and Science in Science Fiction" > by Robin Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1993, listed under Women's > Studies/Critical Theory. > > I just went back to see how this book is categorized...if I was a layperson > who did not know about this work, I probably would never have found > it...this is bugging me more I think that there are excellent materials > already in print that unless you specifically know what you are looking for, > you will not find them. This is why I am very thankful for Laura's work, > and all the other contributors to this field of study. > > I posted a question about what people think FSF is on a second mailing list > consisting of writers, and the answers were very eye opening. One > particular response has had me thinking these last few days. One reply was > stated as follows: "Strength and dertermined spirit are equal opportunists, > no matter what the story is about, no matter who is running the show in the > story." This respondent went further to say that perhaps the field of FSF > is more of a subject to be a historical one, moreso than a current field of > importance, as its time of growth was really in the 70s during the women's > movement. My question I am wondering is now, is this resistance to > categorizing the subject have to do with the current environment? Where in > its infancy, it was necessary to identify oneself as a believer in FSF, and > today with the majority of folks understanding there is equality in society > (or that there ought to be), having "labels" is not necessary as long as the > point got across? The majority of my replies to my initial post were women > who did not wish to be associated with the label "Feminist" yet acknowledged > the importance of equality in social terms, and the need for equality in > society. > > > One more note, people are very passionate on these lists, and I have been > reluctant to share much information from the people who have written to me, > so I go back and forth about how much to put "out there" as some of the > shorter discussions almost got out of hand and came within a smidgen of > flames, so am trying to be careful how I approach people for information. I > am not trying to start a riot, am trying to gather different threads of > discussion. I welcome any feedback about my tact or lack of tact in > solicitations of information. It is from each other we learn. > > Jo Ann > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Petra Mayerhofer > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:12 AM > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > > > > On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons > did > > not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic > > Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because > > Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this > > based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his > > writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have > > assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced > > with Fantasy then?" > > > > Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel > > Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this > > list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in > > which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic > > realism. > > > > My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your > > thesis and that you are more interested in why things are > > categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for > > all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic > > realism at > > http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm > > It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) > > and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as > > magic realism. > > > > Petra > > > > Petra Mayerhofer > > mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de > > -- > > BDG website > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ > > > > > Laura Quilter lauraq@exploratorium.edu ph: 415.353.0465 / 415.561.0343 Learning Center Facilities Manager Exploratorium, San Francisco ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:20:37 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Skye Wentworth Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism:RE: FSF Questions In-Reply-To: <39076B9F.22FAEADC@attglobal.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Phoebe, Without putting you on the spot, you say that you are a magic realist writer -- please tell us more. I read your book, "The Revenant" and see that you are going to be doing a chat on horrorbooks.about.com coming up on May 9th. Do you consider your book to be horror, fantasy or magic realism? Or perhaps all three? How do you think that Magic Realism fits in with Feminists Sci Fi? BTW, I love the name of your book. It's so evocative. Skye At 03:20 PM 04/26/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Jo Ann, > >I really appreciate your look into this area which has offered up some great >book suggestions from a number of people on the list--I've copied the book >titles all down and can't wait to go find them! I think in answer to your >question about the resistance to categorization--it really has to do, for me, >with how categorization leads to market niches, which leads to >pidgeonholing the >works as "all being like 'Like Water For Chocolate'" which was what I heard so >many people say when I would tak to them about magic realism which is the type >of writing I do--and it drove me crazy, probably because I found that >movie and >book to be superficial and not particularly interesting as opposed to say, >Borges and his tiny short piece about Shakespeare and God. In other >words, the >coolness of the work gets lost in the "market toy tie-in" as it were. > >Phoebe > >Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > > Hiya, > > > > No I am analysing every reference I can find that may or may not have > > something to do with the subject matter. A lot of roads I have searched > > have brought me back to Laura's pages, and it is just at this part of my > > investigating that I have formed questions out of what I find. I am not > > wanting something to be included or not included on Laura's page, am just > > asking the why something was put somewhere tis all. I am trying to form a > > working definition from all the various threads out there about what FSF is > > and is not. This is more for my own understanding of the subject rather > than > > finding a thesis(from the number of replies to my inquiries for a working > > definition a lot of things have been handed to me to consider), as I have > > found a book by Robin Roberts that I am currently reading, which gives a > > pretty good introduction to the subject of FSF and the more I read, the > more > > I wonder if this book is used to teach an introductory course to the > > subject. The book is "A New Species: Gender and Science in Science > Fiction" > > by Robin Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1993, listed under Women's > > Studies/Critical Theory. > > > > I just went back to see how this book is categorized...if I was a layperson > > who did not know about this work, I probably would never have found > > it...this is bugging me more I think that there are excellent materials > > already in print that unless you specifically know what you are looking > for, > > you will not find them. This is why I am very thankful for Laura's work, > > and all the other contributors to this field of study. > > > > I posted a question about what people think FSF is on a second mailing list > > consisting of writers, and the answers were very eye opening. One > > particular response has had me thinking these last few days. One reply was > > stated as follows: "Strength and dertermined spirit are equal opportunists, > > no matter what the story is about, no matter who is running the show in the > > story." This respondent went further to say that perhaps the field of FSF > > is more of a subject to be a historical one, moreso than a current field of > > importance, as its time of growth was really in the 70s during the women's > > movement. My question I am wondering is now, is this resistance to > > categorizing the subject have to do with the current environment? Where in > > its infancy, it was necessary to identify oneself as a believer in FSF, and > > today with the majority of folks understanding there is equality in society > > (or that there ought to be), having "labels" is not necessary as long > as the > > point got across? The majority of my replies to my initial post were women > > who did not wish to be associated with the label "Feminist" yet > acknowledged > > the importance of equality in social terms, and the need for equality in > > society. > > > > One more note, people are very passionate on these lists, and I have been > > reluctant to share much information from the people who have written to me, > > so I go back and forth about how much to put "out there" as some of the > > shorter discussions almost got out of hand and came within a smidgen of > > flames, so am trying to be careful how I approach people for > information. I > > am not trying to start a riot, am trying to gather different threads of > > discussion. I welcome any feedback about my tact or lack of tact in > > solicitations of information. It is from each other we learn. > > > > Jo Ann > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Petra Mayerhofer > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > > > > > On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > > "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > > > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons > > did > > > not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic > > > Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because > > > Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this > > > based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his > > > writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have > > > assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced > > > with Fantasy then?" > > > > > > Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel > > > Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this > > > list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in > > > which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic > > > realism. > > > > > > My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your > > > thesis and that you are more interested in why things are > > > categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for > > > all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic > > > realism at > > > http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm > > > It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) > > > and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as > > > magic realism. > > > > > > Petra > > > > > > Petra Mayerhofer > > > mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de > > > -- > > > BDG website > > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ > > > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:47:59 -0700 Reply-To: phoeber@attglobal.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Reeves Subject: Re: Question about Magic Realism:RE: FSF Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Skye, To answer your questions, I would say that The Revenant really is a magic realist book. I've had bookstore people and reviewers call it mystery and horror, in part because again that's more familiar territory to wrap one's head around than magic realism which is still despite the long line of magic realist writers--and particularly women magic realist writers. My favorites are Bonnie Reynolds, Margaret St. Clair (whom I discovered through my auntie who was her nurse--sadly, she died about two weeks after I started reading her wonderful short stories collected by Martin Greenberg), and Patricia Geary. I think, too, that The Revenant, since it's written in the first person, has an intensity that can scare and create horror in the reader that makes it crossover. But there's no science, hard or soft, in it so I wouldn't categorize it as scifi. It has ghosts, gods, demons, monsters, and people in it--all interacting with and twisting reality--of course, that's supposing that there's such a thing as an objective, "normal" reality. I definitely invite everyone to join the chat--this list has given me much food for thought! About Magic Realism fitting in with the FemScifi, it seems a totally natural fit to me because the archtypes in magical realist fiction deal with female archetypes--what women can become as well as what they have been. cheers, Phoebe Skye Wentworth wrote: > Phoebe, > > Without putting you on the spot, you say that you are a magic realist > writer -- please tell us more. I read your book, "The Revenant" and see > that you are going to be doing a chat on horrorbooks.about.com coming up on > May 9th. Do you consider your book to be horror, fantasy or magic realism? > Or perhaps all three? How do you think that Magic Realism fits in with > Feminists Sci Fi? BTW, I love the name of your book. It's so evocative. > > Skye > > At 03:20 PM 04/26/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Jo Ann, > > > >I really appreciate your look into this area which has offered up some great > >book suggestions from a number of people on the list--I've copied the book > >titles all down and can't wait to go find them! I think in answer to your > >question about the resistance to categorization--it really has to do, for me, > >with how categorization leads to market niches, which leads to > >pidgeonholing the > >works as "all being like 'Like Water For Chocolate'" which was what I heard so > >many people say when I would tak to them about magic realism which is the type > >of writing I do--and it drove me crazy, probably because I found that > >movie and > >book to be superficial and not particularly interesting as opposed to say, > >Borges and his tiny short piece about Shakespeare and God. In other > >words, the > >coolness of the work gets lost in the "market toy tie-in" as it were. > > > >Phoebe > > > >Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > > > > Hiya, > > > > > > No I am analysing every reference I can find that may or may not have > > > something to do with the subject matter. A lot of roads I have searched > > > have brought me back to Laura's pages, and it is just at this part of my > > > investigating that I have formed questions out of what I find. I am not > > > wanting something to be included or not included on Laura's page, am just > > > asking the why something was put somewhere tis all. I am trying to form a > > > working definition from all the various threads out there about what FSF is > > > and is not. This is more for my own understanding of the subject rather > > than > > > finding a thesis(from the number of replies to my inquiries for a working > > > definition a lot of things have been handed to me to consider), as I have > > > found a book by Robin Roberts that I am currently reading, which gives a > > > pretty good introduction to the subject of FSF and the more I read, the > > more > > > I wonder if this book is used to teach an introductory course to the > > > subject. The book is "A New Species: Gender and Science in Science > > Fiction" > > > by Robin Roberts, University of Illinois Press, 1993, listed under Women's > > > Studies/Critical Theory. > > > > > > I just went back to see how this book is categorized...if I was a layperson > > > who did not know about this work, I probably would never have found > > > it...this is bugging me more I think that there are excellent materials > > > already in print that unless you specifically know what you are looking > > for, > > > you will not find them. This is why I am very thankful for Laura's work, > > > and all the other contributors to this field of study. > > > > > > I posted a question about what people think FSF is on a second mailing list > > > consisting of writers, and the answers were very eye opening. One > > > particular response has had me thinking these last few days. One reply was > > > stated as follows: "Strength and dertermined spirit are equal opportunists, > > > no matter what the story is about, no matter who is running the show in the > > > story." This respondent went further to say that perhaps the field of FSF > > > is more of a subject to be a historical one, moreso than a current field of > > > importance, as its time of growth was really in the 70s during the women's > > > movement. My question I am wondering is now, is this resistance to > > > categorizing the subject have to do with the current environment? Where in > > > its infancy, it was necessary to identify oneself as a believer in FSF, and > > > today with the majority of folks understanding there is equality in society > > > (or that there ought to be), having "labels" is not necessary as long > > as the > > > point got across? The majority of my replies to my initial post were women > > > who did not wish to be associated with the label "Feminist" yet > > acknowledged > > > the importance of equality in social terms, and the need for equality in > > > society. > > > > > > One more note, people are very passionate on these lists, and I have been > > > reluctant to share much information from the people who have written to me, > > > so I go back and forth about how much to put "out there" as some of the > > > shorter discussions almost got out of hand and came within a smidgen of > > > flames, so am trying to be careful how I approach people for > > information. I > > > am not trying to start a riot, am trying to gather different threads of > > > discussion. I welcome any feedback about my tact or lack of tact in > > > solicitations of information. It is from each other we learn. > > > > > > Jo Ann > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Petra Mayerhofer > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:12 AM > > > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Question about Magic Realism > > > > > > > On 25 Apr 00, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > > > > "I noticed while going over the alphabet listing at the FSF & U website > > > > this afternoon that in the listing for books that for different reasons > > > did > > > > not fit under the Feminist Science Fiction and Utopia category, Magic > > > > Realism is its own category I guess, so I wanted to ask is this because > > > > Magic Realism has elements that are different than Fantasy or was this > > > > based on other factors as well? I know Gabriel Marquez is known for his > > > > writing to be Magical Realism (in general terms that is), I may have > > > > assumed wrongly then that Magic Realism cannot be cross referenced > > > > with Fantasy then?" > > > > > > > > Like you I formerly associated Magic Realism mainly with Gabriel > > > > Marquez. That changed when we had a discussion once on this > > > > list because of an Amazon interview with Nalo Hopkinson in > > > > which _Brown Girl in the Ring_ was categorized as magic > > > > realism. > > > > > > > > My impression is that you sort of analyze Laura's website for your > > > > thesis and that you are more interested in why things are > > > > categorized there as in what magic realism is. But if not (and for > > > > all the others): There is a nice page by Evelyn Leeper on magic > > > > realism at > > > > http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/magreal.htm > > > > It summarizes a discussion people had on a list/face to face (?) > > > > and at the end there is a list of works which can be categorized as > > > > magic realism. > > > > > > > > Petra > > > > > > > > Petra Mayerhofer > > > > mailto:mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de > > > > -- > > > > BDG website > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1304/ > > > > > > > >