Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 19:53:16 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I finished *Dawn* this afternoon and thought I would get my thoughts down now rather than waiting for the official start of the discussion on Monday. I found that, as with *Wild Seed*, the story gripped me, despite occasional irritation with what I'm beginning to think of as the author's blind spots. Her strength is her imagination of the alien. I really enjoyed learning about the Oankali's physiology and the way the ship worked. And at the end, the revelation of how the ooloi made themselves indispensable in sexual relationships was a creepy extrapolation of what we already had been told. The book is well-paced -- Lilith starts out in the "Womb" and works her way to the "Training Room" as we learn more and more about the Oankali and their plans and observe the growth of Lilith's relationship to Nikanj. I found this interesting, but the introduction of the other human characters was the point at which I felt the story would really bloom. I enjoyed the suspense of Lilith's overview of the dossiers -- it seemed almost like a mystery novel's review of the suspects, in reverse -- but when she actually began awakening people I was disappointed to find that the new characters were a lot less interesting than their profiles had led me to believe. I've concluded that Butler simply is not good at characterization. She knows that people have real differences that are acted out in their behavior, but when it comes to writing their dialogue or describing them in action, she makes them stereotyped and uninteresting. From a feminist standpoint, I have a few problems with the book. Butler is very aware of feminist issues, but only to a point, at which she seems to become completely blind. There is more than one attempted rape in the novel, and the rapists are portrayed as brutish, though fairly typical, human men. The Oankali go so far as to say that there is something genetically wrong with human males that makes them behave in this way. Yet, at the end of the book, Nikanj reveals to Lilith that it has impregnated her without her knowledge or consent! Lilith is not happy about the situation, but only because the child won't be "human", not because she's unhappy about being pregnant. Throughout the book the women have known that they will probably be used in breeding experiments (though they don't know the details), and NONE of them react with the horror that I would feel at the thought of being forced to bear children. I don't find it believable. Just as I don't find it believable that not one of the 43 humans awakened by Lilith is homosexual. Butler could have gotten around the issue by explaining homosexuality as a genetic imperfection that the Oankali have fixed (as Sheri Tepper did in *The Gate to Women's Country*). I wouldn't have been happy about it, but at least she would have shown some awareness that gay people really exist. There is no such explanation, though there is a clear opportunity for one when Nikanj asks Lilith what a "faggot" is. Very strange. Another problem from a feminist standpoint is the lack of secondary female characters of any consequence. Near the end of the book Lilith thinks about how much she misses Tate and how there are no other close friends to take her place -- but since we were given no evidence of their friendship to begin with this doesn't carry much weight. The only characters that ever felt important to Lilith were Nikanj and Joseph -- one ooloi, one male. Did anyone else notice how willing the Oankali were to behave like masters, despite their reservations about the human tendency toward hierarchy? Particularly in the beginning of the book, I was infuriated with their withholding of information when there seemed no point to it -- it seemed just a means of letting Lilith know who was boss. The fact that none of the human characters ever called them on this behavior made no sense to me. I think I will stop there. What do other people think? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Lo Fidelity Allstars -- How to Operate with a Blown Mind "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 18:34:10 -0700 From: "Magdalena A. K. Muir" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Response to comments on "Dawn", and writings of Octavia Butler. I also apologize for preempting the date of the discussion, but wanted to respond to Janice's email while it was fresh in my mind. I have read almost of Butler's books, as well as the selected book, Dawn. I enjoy Butler's book because of the ideas they explore, such as what is community, religion, or with Dawn, the impact on people and culture of changing human sexuality and reproduction to require aliens. I share some of Janice's thoughts with respect to plot and characterization for these books. The plot and motivations do not always seem believable, and male and female characters seem to function within relatively narrow roles. I don't enjoy the characterization of most males as being capable of extreme brutality, as that seems a limited view of human beings. Aliens aren't quite as typecast so they can be more interesting. With Dawn, the premise of aliens preserving a sufficient number to observe, breed, reproduce with and in some way use their genetic material, did not altogether flow for me. However, it permitted interaction with aliens on very intimate ways. One question the novel raised for me, and that I would like to raise for others, is whether human beings would be so hostile to alien contact and interaction. There seem to very strong emphasis on that instinctive revulsion, and the use of it to justify even the murder of one's fellow humans. Magdalena ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 09:03:32 -0000 From: Elizabeth Billinger Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Magdalena asked: > One question the novel raised for me, and that I would like to raise for > others, is whether human beings would be so hostile to alien contact and > interaction. There seem to very strong emphasis on that instinctive > revulsion, and the use of it to justify even the murder of one's fellow > humans. I hope that I would be more open and curious, though I have a generally cautious nature. I hope that there would be a number of other people - the ones who read sf maybe - who would also be interested in the possibilities such contact brings. I fear, however, that there would be an overwhelming majority responding with instinctive revulsion. The rest of Europe is not actually alien, but you'd think it was if you heard the reaction in the press, and from real live people, to the idea of Britain becoming a more integral part of the European Community. To move from imperial measurements to metric, to change our currency from the pound to the euro - these things are perceived as a dangerous loss of identity and heralds of the end of the world as we know it. How much more resistance there would be to any kind of co- operation with little green men... Lizbeth ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 10:42:51 -0700 From: "Magdalena A. K. Muir" Subject: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Elizabeth, I appreciate your point as I was recently in England. London is very multi-cultural but also markedly different from the country, and it seems sometimes an uneasy fit. Based on that trip and travels to cultures that are more homogeneous, I can clinically understand the sense of nationalism that peoples can feel, particularly when one is under some from of threat or forced to co-exist with the Other. However, it is somewhat inconsistent with my experience. I live in Canada, which like much of the Americas is an ethnic mix with no clear majority, and an identity formed from a merger of peoples. That informs my bias and how I interpret fiction. To apply that to Dawn, does a story like this with an eventual and painful merger of humans with aliens, arise because of the mixed culture and diversity of the author's society? Another way to put that question is would this story, or even Butler's be written by someone who does not arise from a multicultural society? Magdalena ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 14:51:08 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Dawn/Contact with "Others" To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU A quick response to the question about how humans would react to > > "alien contact and interaction. There seem to very strong emphasis > > on that instinctive revulsion, and the use of it to justify even the > > murder of one's fellow humans." I think Butler's descriptions are fairly close to what would happen. Look how we use the term "alien" to describe other human beings; how, historically cultures have reacted to humans from cultures that are perceived as "different' (categorizing them as inferior because of that difference); how so many people are freaked out by anyone who is perceived as different from them (skin color, language, sexual identity); the fear and loathing expressed in the need to control "Others." And these are all attitudes about other human beings. How would the majority of humans respond to aliens appearing--let along, human beings who have barely survived the nuclear holocaust which precedes events in Butler's trilogy. (One of the few sf novels I've read that pointedly argues that the majority of people killed immediately in an all out nuclear war would be the populations of the major industrialized countries who have their armaments aimed at each other, with "black and brown peoples" being mostly untargeted--at the time that Butler was writing this book anyway.) Lots of other post-nuclear war novels seem to think only white Anglos or white Europeans would survive..... I haven't read the novel recently, but read the trilogy many times in the past, and have heard good presentations about it.....the issue of her female characters response to the breeding situation has been seen as problematic by a number of feminist critics I've read/heard speak. I agree although I think the way she is interested in focusing on the specific situation of slavery and forced breeding (an sf take on American slavery) and the ultimate issue of survival: it does make me terribly uncomfortable, but I have to ask, if I was in Lilith's position, what would I be able to do? Butler's characters always have situations in which they have little choice as to what they can DO--the issue may well be what they are thinking as well. Her works always grabs me, makes me think, keeps me coming back for multiple readings, and won't let me ignore it. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 16:04:19 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Responding to Janice's post: >snip< >Just as I don't find it believable that not one of the 43 humans awakened >by Lilith is homosexual. All the more problematic, I think, when one realizes that Butler herself is homosexual. >more snipping< >Did anyone else notice how willing the Oankali were to behave like masters, >despite their reservations about the human tendency toward hierarchy? >Particularly in the beginning of the book, I was infuriated with their >withholding of information when there seemed no point to it -- it seemed >just a means of letting Lilith know who was boss. The fact that none of the >human characters ever called them on this behavior made no sense to me. > >I think I will stop there. What do other people think? I think it's hard to discuss _Dawn_ in the absence of the two following books in the trilogy. As the story progresses, the humans find it harder and harder to put up with the Oankali decisions about humanity's future. There are human separatists, etc. It may be, to be kind to _Dawn_, that in the first book the humans may still be reeling from the realization of what has happened to them. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 18:04:11 -0500 From: Elizabeth Pandolfo/Briggs Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 10:42:51AM -0700, Magdalena A. K. Muir wrote: > Based on that trip and travels to cultures that are more homogeneous, I can > clinically understand the sense of nationalism that peoples can feel, > particularly when one is under some from of threat or forced to co-exist > with the Other. However, it is somewhat inconsistent with my experience. I > live in Canada, which like much of the Americas is an ethnic mix with no > clear majority, and an identity formed from a merger of peoples. That > informs my bias and how I interpret fiction. I am surprised that you've lived in Canada and not come across situations of nationalism, such as tension between English- and French-heritage peoples, those majority groups and immigrants of other nationalities, and whites and native peoples. Those issues are frequently dealt with in literatures from Canada that I've read, and have strikingly come up in conversations my husband and I have with Canadian friends. Also, as an American, I'd like to point out that currently there is a clear ethnic majority (white), although that majority is expected to be affected in the next 10 years by increases in the black and Hispanic populations. In different areas of the US, where majority ethnicities come in contact with minority ones (and those will depend on the region), there are strong, even violent ethnic feelings, leanings, and disputes. There are also vast differences in what people around the US consider their identities. I find Butler's depiction of the violent feelings and actions by the humans against the Oankali to be unexaggerated and realistically depicted. Like Lizbeth mentioned, the UK can be an excellent example of how such tensions play out (as can the US), and that's humans against humans (I attend the University of Wales, Cardiff, studying Welsh nationalism, etc., and got some shocking first-hand examples of nationalistic and ethnic discriminatory behavior while I lived there, since Wales is a colonized country dominated by England). > To apply that to Dawn, does a story like this with an eventual and painful > merger of humans with aliens, arise because of the mixed culture and > diversity of the author's society? Another way to put that question is would > this story, or even Butler's be written by someone who does not arise from a > multicultural society? From my research on Butler, her primary concerns in her novels are the dangers of hierarchy. She feels humans are essentially hierarchical, and unable to function in any other fashion societally. To her, that is humans' fatal flaw. She uses her novels to explore these ideas from various perspectives; in _Dawn_, from the perspectives of male vs. female and human vs. alien. I feel she's making a statement about how multicultural societies operate only tangentially, as another example of society forming around a power-based hierarchy. Elizabeth Elizabeth L. Pandolfo Briggs pandolfo@ninthwonder.com www.ninthwonder.com/~pandolfo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 19:35:24 -0600 From: Nancy Phillips Subject: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I haven't read the Oankali trilogy for about a year, my second reading. Miscegenation. Slavery. Survival. I doubt that this book would have been written by a white writer, or by a black man. In the Oankali system, both human sexes are made subjects of the Oankali-controlled reproduction, although of course only the human female bears. This does differ from the US slave system, where slave male reproductive capacity was not directly accessed by white owners, though strong and healthy slave men could be encouraged to spread their seed around among the available slave women. Of course the slave female reproductive capacity was directly accessed by white owners - by rape or by reward - and the Jefferson estate association recognition of the Heming lineage is the latest acknowledgement of a fact that is immediately apparent to all Americans who have eyes to see. Of course there is much more to the novel. The depiction of the human men as largely brutal may be in part due to the complete collapse of society post-holocaust. Gentleness and cooperation are not survival traits when there is little social cohesion in the first place. In some ways I do not see this as a "feminist" or "anti-male" trope as much as a "post-holocaust" trope. The Oankali both rescue samples of the life on Earth from supposedly inevitable death after the nuclear holocaust, and doom the Earth and its remaining unaltered life to annihilation. The planet is supposed to rip apart when the bio-spaceships growing on Earth have completely developed and are ready to leave the system. Lilith is told this fairly early on, and chooses to promote human survival in a hybrid human-Oankali form. She really hates herself for doing so, and is hated by other humans as a collaborationist and traitor. It isn't a classic master/slave relationship, because the Oankali offered survival after a human-caused holocaust, and the Oankali eventually offer (SPOILER) a terraformed planet for use of humans that will not breed with Oankali (END SPOILER). There are some distinctly unpleasant aspects to the Oankali treatment of humans. The Oankali objectify humans, not for their beauty, but for their novel human genetic content. Lilith is a star because she has hereditary cancer. In some cases the men just can't deal with being treated "just like women" - not equal to the Oankali, human person's worth to Oankalis based on some characteristic (genetics) out of that person's control. The humans are not told the whole truth on the human-Oankali relationship (SPOILER - humans in an H/O relationship can't ever have physical sex with other humans - END SPOILER). Nancy Phillips, M.D. phone:(314)577-8782 Pathology fax:(314)268-5120 St. Louis University Hospital email: phillinj@slu.edu 3635 Vista Ave. St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA aacgccaattgctatccccatattctgctaatcccgagcatggac ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:03:21 -0700 From: "Magdalena A. K. Muir" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Elizabeth I take your point about tensions between groups in Canada, and distinct ethnic tensions. I work extensively with First Nations, and historically with some aspects of Quebec separatism here. I am also embarking on some human right work in Europe with Gypsies. However, I will still assert that in Canada there is no clear majority ethnic population in English speaking Canada. While some parties resent this, and this gives rise to racism and discrimination, to be a Canadian is not to be defined ethnically, but to be defined culturally. You may assert differently for the US, and I would be defer to you on that point. However, many countries have clear ethnic majorities, and the definition of nationalism is tha of race. What is the relevance of this to Dawn; in an ethnically defined society, the stranger is always the outcast and can never merge with the society. If the book is a parable, how does one address the stranger and redefine what it means to be part of the society. There is also parallels to sexual identity: are we born with it, or do we choose it? Do we have to behave in a certain way because of an accident of birth? May we make choices in partners, lifestyle and perspectives irrespective of our or other person's gender or race? To me, this is very relevant as one tries to apply fiction to the modern world, and understand how to create a more flexible society in an interconnected world. Thanks for your patience with my comments, and appreciate any thoughts. I will listen to the next few days to others' discussion, and defer intruding. --------------- On February 6, 2000 at 16:04, Elizabeth Pandolfo/Briggs wrote: > I am surprised that you've lived in Canada and not come across situations > of nationalism, such as tension between English- and French-heritage > peoples, those majority groups and immigrants of other nationalities, and > whites and native peoples. Those issues are frequently dealt with in > literatures from Canada that I've read, and have strikingly come up in > conversations my husband and I have with Canadian friends. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 20:28:02 -0800 From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Dawn/Contact with "Others" To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > I think Butler's descriptions are fairly close to what would happen. Look > how we use the term "alien" to describe other human beings; how, > historically cultures have reacted to humans from cultures that are > perceived as "different' (categorizing them as inferior because of that > difference); how so many people are freaked out by anyone who is perceived > as different from them (skin color, language, sexual identity); the fear > and loathing expressed in the need to control "Others." And these are all > attitudes about other human beings. I see what you're saying, but I also had a problem with that aspect of the book; in my own life, I don't see _revulsion_ toward the "other" when the situation is one-on-one (as it is when Lilith first wakes up in the little room). Group-on-group, or one-on-group, yes, but not one-on-one. Maybe it's just me... > I haven't read the novel recently, but read the trilogy many times in the > past, and have heard good presentations about it.....the issue of her > female characters response to the breeding situation has been seen as > problematic by a number of feminist critics I've read/heard speak. I agree > although I think the way she is interested in focusing on the specific > situation of slavery and forced breeding (an sf take on American slavery) > and the ultimate issue of survival: it does make me terribly > uncomfortable, but I have to ask, if I was in Lilith's position, what would > I be able to do? Butler's characters always have situations in which they > have little choice as to what they can DO--the issue may well be what they > are thinking as well. Her works always grabs me, makes me think, keeps me > coming back for multiple readings, and won't let me ignore it. This is EXACTLY what I LOVE about Butler's books; no matter how frustrated I am with the characters, no matter how upset the situations they're in make me, her books ALWAYS grab me and don't let go; they all make me THINK, usually about things no other book has quite made me think about before. -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:06:22 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I read Dawn back in the summer last year and it's sequel, although I still haven't read the final chapter of the trilogy. I have also read a collection of short stories by Butler which I found equally thought provoking. > I share some of Janice's thoughts with respect to > plot and characterization for these books. The plot > and motivations do not always seem believable, and > male and female characters seem to function within > relatively narrow roles. This bothered me too. I always worry when sf feminist books say that all men are genetically inclined to brutishness. I think that men behaving in these kinds of ways are learned behaviours not simply a part of being male. Yesterday on CBC Radio One on a show called Tapestry they had a piece on about a former nun who wrote a book called "Is The Pope Catholic?" In the interview she said that the Catholic Church's ruling that women can't be priests opens the door to abuse against women because you've already told your followers that a woman is not equal to a man so the same rules don't apply to her. I guess I'm straying from the point, but it is frightening when we say women are this way and men are that way no matter how you slice it. > One question the novel raised for me, and that I > would like to raise for others, is whether human > beings would be so hostile to alien contact and > interaction. There seem to very strong emphasis on > that instinctive revulsion, and the use of it to > justify even the murder of one's fellow humans. The immediate revulsion that all the characters feel really threw me off too. I mean we encounter "alien" lifeforms all the time on this planet. Note to all! Humans are not the only species on this planet!?! I suppose to see Jabba the Hutt on the screen in Jedi is one thing, but if I actually encounter a living and breathing and pungent Jabba live and in person it might be a whole other matter. Although I don't know if I would go into spasms upon seeing him. > > Her strength is her imagination of the alien. I > > really enjoyed learning about the Oankali's physiology > > and the way the ship worked. The very in depth description of the Oankali was perhaps one of the most fascinating parts of the novel. They were cool and very different as a species. A totally different structure in every way from humans. > > -- but when she actually began awakening people I > > was disappointed to find that the new characters > > were a lot less interesting than their profiles > > had led me to believe. Yes, the people Lilith wakes up all rapidly became caricatures and not characters anymore. It reminded me of watching disaster movies where you have the mother, the single rich guy, the black guy from the rough neighbourhood, the lesbian, the teenaged virgin, and that's all these people are - a label. They are nothing more than tokens. > > The Oankali go so far as to say that there is > > something genetically wrong with human males that > > makes them behave in this way. Once again a disturbing theory no matter how you shake it. It always reminds me of this list I used to be on called poli-dykes. It was for politically active lesbians. I unsubbed from it when someone suggested that all babies born with a penis should be killed on the spot because they will become rapists. Too my utter horror several people on the list agreed with this view and when I put up a post expressing my disgust with this view I quickly became a pariah and shortly after un-subbed. If you enforce the view that you are limited to only certain possibilities because of your gender, race, sexual orientation, height, weight, or physical disability you are opening the floodgates of prejudice. EX: I am on the Alumni Board for Mohawk College. Every year we submit outstanding Mohawk grads to win the annual Premier's awards. Our guy (Master T from Much Music) lost in the arts category this year, to who? A guy who has no arms or legs and yet he is a world renowned choreographer. Yet another example of you can do anything if you put your mind to it. > > Lilith is not happy about the situation, but only > > because the child won't be "human", not because she's > > unhappy about being pregnant. That part of the book really bothered me. Because basically the Oankali raped her and impregnated her without her consent. It was real blow to me and to Lilith. What a rape of trust! I thought her reaction was a little odd too. > > Just as I don't find it believable that not one of > > the 43 humans awakened by Lilith is homosexual. You know what I hadn't even thought about that until you brought it up. Perhaps if an explanation of we need to increase the species so homosexuals won't do us too much good right now might have worked, but eh? But isn't there an actor guy who turns out to be gay and decides to live by himself away from the others. I can't remember, it has been a while. Some details have become rather fuzzy. > > explaining homosexuality as a genetic imperfection > > that the Oankali have fixed (as Sheri Tepper did > > in *The Gate to Women's Country*). It has been a while since I read Gate. I don't remember homosexuality being explained away like that. I will have to read it again. > > Particularly in the beginning of the book, I was > > infuriated with their withholding of information > > when there seemed no point to it -- it seemed > > just a means of letting Lilith know who was boss. Yes that duplicity bothered me as well. It didn't seem very honest. > > I think I will stop there. What do other people > > think? One attitude that was very prevalent from the humans was a "Who do these aliens think they are? How dare they?" stance that really irked me. I kind of felt that these humans had no right to complain. Here are these aliens giving you a second chance after you completely destroyed your own planet. Who do you guys think YOU are? Even in the sequel to DAWN the resistance movement and all that jazz. It really bothered me. Perhaps working with them would be best since you would be DEAD otherwise!?! The Oankali did at times come across as being a tad self righteous, but then again they didn't destroy themselves and their home world so who am I as a lowly human to talk (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). If nothing else DAWN disturbed me. It left me feeling unsettled and rattled. I was thinking it was a comment on slavery, but Butler has said in numerous interviews that slavery as we have know it especially in the United States wasn't quite what she was aiming for. I haven't read the last book in the trilogy, perhaps the final answer lies there. I'd love to hear more from other people who have read it. Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:52:49 -0800 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Magdalena wrote: >However, I will still assert that in Canada there is no clear majority >ethnic population in English speaking Canada. While some parties resent >this, and this gives rise to racism and discrimination, to be a Canadian is >not to be defined ethnically, but to be defined culturally. I've been reading recently about the issues of immigration in Western Europe, an area which historically has not been very immigrant-friendly. One comment was made that anyone could become French (for example) but you had to really *be French*. The assumption was that an immigrant would completely embrace French culture, rather than bringing her own culture and adding it to the stewpot--which is, of course, the American Way. I found that fascinating, because it had never occurred to think about it that way. One might argue that this is exactly what's happening to the humans in Dawn: they're invited to join the Oankali, but solely on their terms. Jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:36:30 -0000 From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi All I'm new this list, and I hesitate to post my thoughts since I haven't yet read the book for the month; however the reason why I put off reading it is pertinent to the current discussion. I have only once tried reading a book by Butler and gave up a quarter of the way in, just because I was getting so irritated by her heavy-handed characterisation of the bad-guys (mainly human males). I don't mind two-dimensional stereotypes in their place. I can thoroughly enjoy a fantasy epic with the forces of darkness as no more than identikit villains, but I rapidly lose patience when a author makes it clear they are writing a 'serious' book and then produces a one-side, blinkered analysis that answers nothing. The same applies to a discussion of xenophobia in the UK. Against the tabloid headlines you have to put statistics such as that 50% of the black population of the UK have white partners. I'll bet the people who write and read the anti-EEC headlines drink French wine, eat Italian pasta, buy German cars and go on holiday to Spain. Even the most simple-minded of racists can be ambiguously complex. I still muse on the conversation I overheard years ago in a London pub: person A - I can't stand blacks. person B (indignantly) - Your best-mate Pete is black. person A - Oh... yeah... but I don't think of Pete as black. And in response to Jessie's statement >>I've been reading recently about the issues of immigration in Western Europe, an area which historically has not been very immigrant-friendly.<< I would point out that the reason Western Europe seems so racially homogenous is because immigrants have traditionally been absorbed by intermarriage - at the abolition of the slave trade Lisbon was 20% black. Walking its streets today you can see virtually no sign of the freed slaves contribution to the ethnic mix. As for human reaction to alien contact, I don't know if anyone on the list has read Gwyneth Jones' 'North Wind', but to my mind it contains an extremely plausible depiction of it - varied, changing, irrational, pro, anti, confused, posturing and ultimately doomed. It is also very interesting from a feminist viewpoint. To get back to 'Dawn'; when I saw that the book for February was by Butler I didn't fancy reading it, but I know I am wrong to form an opinion of an author on the basis of one partially read book. From the discussion so far I suspect that reading the book may not change my view of her writing, however it is unfair (and unwise) to criticise from a position of ignorance, so I promise to read the book and get back to the debate when I have some better-informed things to say. Jane ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 18:15:26 -0600 From: Nancy Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU The "enemy" in this piece seems to be the Oankali. No human sees them as unalloyed saviors. Those that ally themselves with the Oankali recognise that the Oankali have incredibly effective seduction techniques once allowed access to the human body - direct manipulation of the nervous system. It doesn't stop the humans from feeling "used" sometimes. It feels like rape to them. Oankali however are neither good guys or bad guys, even though they are the enemy. As for Butler being anti-male, I don't see this in her work as a whole, though in some individual novels it is rather prominent (Doro, the immortal male vampire in Wild Seed, is a particularly repellent individual, though his nasty propensity is explained as driven by his traumatic discovery of his powers (eats his family) and a physiology that is different from the female immortal shapeshifter Anyawu (sic)). The older male doctor in the recent Parable novels is a gentle hero, as are a good many other men in the Parable novels. However, men, when they choose to be predators, are shown as more effective predators. The human male characters in the early part of Dawn aren't all that interesting, and the main focus is on Lilith vs. Oankali, esp. Nikanj. It is not such a bad thing to have a SF novel where a woman is an active first-contact participant. Even if the initial first contact was rape of a sort, she controls much fo the interaction thereafter. Would the book be a topic for the list if a human man was running the first contact and offering passive human women for alien breeding use? Men are seen as on the whole less adaptable to a situation where they are no longer in control. I would say that this is a true characterisation. The human men in the later books in the trilogy are more interesting. Several people on the list have alluded to a certain discomfort with Butler. Most of the novels make me squeamish at times. The "heros" often cut the kind of bargains for survival that are morally ambiguous. There is no knight in silver armor. Jane said: >I was getting so irritated by her heavy-handed characterisation >of the bad-guys (mainly human males). > >I don't mind two-dimensional stereotypes in their place. I can thoroughly >enjoy a fantasy epic with the forces of darkness as no more than identikit >villains, but I rapidly lose patience when a author makes it clear they are >writing a 'serious' book and then produces a one-side, blinkered analysis >that answers nothing. btw, I had no idea that Lisbon was 20% black during the slave trade era. 20% of permanent free inhabitants? No subsequent emigrations? (well, I am just a provincial Midwesterner) Nancy Phillips, M.D. phone:(314)577-8782 Pathology fax:(314)268-5120 St. Louis University Hospital email: phillinj@slu.edu 3635 Vista Ave. St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA aacgccaattgctatccccatattctgctaatcccgagcatggac ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 18:00:54 -0700 From: "Magdalena A. K. Muir" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn- We are all social constructs To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It was interesting to see the response and comments about cultural integration and who is the alien both in France (below), and Jane's comment with respect to cultural diversity and acceptance in England and Portugal. I would like to illustrate this with an example from Canada. Quebec receives many French language immigrants who are not ethnically the same as parties in Quebec. They may be Haitians, Vietnamese, from french West Africa or the Caribbean and reside primarily in Montreal. At times, the separatism movement defines parties as "pur laine" or from the ethnic Quebecois. So there is this tension between ethnic and language defined identities, and urban (Montreal) and rural (Quebec City and the countryside in Quebec). The assertion of Quebec nationalism also comes into conflict with Quebec Indians (or First Nations as referred to in Canada) as the First Nation claim predates the French colonial claim. Despite that, I think you would find many people in Quebec to be quite accepting of other racial people, particularly younger people who have grown up in a different world where Canada is multicultural. Canadian First Nations are also very interesting in their approach to inclusion, as they typically have always added to their numbers by conquest, adoption and intermarriage. Government, more particularly the British and Canadian, introduced a blood test based on descent through the husband to maintain "Indian status", primarily to limit inclusion in the group and encourage absorption into the general culture. As Indian status became a benefit, parties would modify their conduct such as not specifying the father and remaining unmarried to maintain Indian status for their children. It is interesting that in the modern treaties or land claims agreements, the First Nations are very clear that the as a group who define who the beneficiaries and to include parties who have been accepted into the community. Even in the more polarized relations that exist right now, most First Nation communities will still accept and be open to people who wish to participate and to know them. Environment is the last example and with the closest parallels to aliens. One direction it is going is to go away from a human centered approach, to ecosystems and other species within the values and parties who have to be accommodated. There is even an insult about being speciest (ie human centered). Why do I mention this: It seems to me that identity, race, what is male and what is female, and what is human and what is alien is a social construct, and we can choose to accept or exclude others in these constructs. I like to define "feminism" includes all these variables. Similarly, rejection of what is different is not automatic and need not occur. The question would be how to avoid the development of the history and culture of hate discussed in books like Igantieff's The Blood of Nations. The other question that interest me is how one reconciles after that period, which is why I find the experience of truth commissions in places like South Africa and Chile fascinating. It also why I enjoy Butler's books as they seem to explore race, human and gender issues. Magdalena ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 20:15:49 -0600 From: Nancy Phillips Subject: [*FSF-L*] The Canada thread (was: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn- We are all social constructs To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Magdalena and others, have you read Elizabeth Vonarburg's Reluctant Voyagers? I must admit I found it a bit opaque, although intriguing. I suspect that a Quebecois/e would "get it" a bit better than an American from the midwest. It is set in a near-future Montreal with a walled and patrolled Francophone portion (ghetto, as in Jewish quarter, not "no-grocery-stores US people-of-color" ghetto), and a smaller Quebec university town, Chicoutimi. >I would like to illustrate this with an example from Canada. Quebec receives >many French language immigrants who are not ethnically the same as parties >in Quebec. They may be Haitians, Vietnamese, from french West Africa or the >Caribbean and reside primarily in Montreal. At times, the separatism movement >defines parties as "pur laine" or from the ethnic Quebecois. So there is >this tension between ethnic and language defined identities, and urban >(Montreal) and rural (Quebec City and the countryside in Quebec). The >assertion of Quebec nationalism also comes into conflict with Quebec Indians >(or First Nations as referred to in Canada) as the First Nation claim >predates the French colonial claim. Despite that, I think you would find >many people in Quebec to be quite accepting of other racial people, >particularly younger people who have grown up in a different world where >Canada is multicultural. Nancy Phillips, M.D. phone:(314)577-8782 Pathology fax:(314)268-5120 St. Louis University Hospital email: phillinj@slu.edu 3635 Vista Ave. St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA aacgccaattgctatccccatattctgctaatcccgagcatggac ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 23:02:04 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Contact To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 08:28 PM 2/6/2000 -0800, Magdalena A. K. Muir wrote: >One question the novel raised for me, and that I would like to raise for >others, is whether human beings would be so hostile to alien contact and >interaction. There seem to very strong emphasis on that instinctive >revulsion, and the use of it to justify even the murder of one's fellow >humans. I questioned this assumption as well. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of examples in real life of racial or ethnic stereotyping leading to violence and death, but they are not directly analogous to the situation in *Dawn*. Nationalism, racism, sexism are conceptual constructs that are taught to children, reinforced over time, and often directed at specific groups. It takes work to maintain them. I can believe that some of the awakened humans would be ready and willing to begin work on an anti-alien mythology when they find out the Oankali's plans, but the structure is not yet in place when they are first awakened. And not all people would necessarily buy into it. As Magdalena says, part of Butler's explanation for the uniformity of reaction is the instinctive aversion humans feel for the Oankali's creepy, otherworldly appearance. I found this vaguely plausible, though overdone (it would have been more convincing if the Oankali resembled some animal customarily feared by humans, i.e. insects or slimy creatures).* But this aversion stage eventually passes. From there on out, a mysterious "humanity first" sentiment takes over. Some are more hard-core about it than others, but the more temperate, including Lilith, are simply biding their time until they have some real hope of escape. Why are there no "traitors" who genuinely side with the Oankali and don't want to escape from them? And why aren't there more conflicts between the humans themselves? (The only things they have in common -- apart from their humanity -- are that they speak English and somehow lived through the nuclear war.) Maybe we are to assume that all of the "collaborators" have already been awakened and are living with Oankali families on the ship, but I would expect a much wider range of responses to the (nearly) all-powerful aliens. (What about cargo cults?) Jane Fletcher mentioned Gwyneth Jones's *North Wind*, and I can vouch for *White Queen*, the first book in the sequence -- it made me dizzy and definitely could use a re-read, but I came away with a powerful sense of how heartbreakingly strange things can get in the real world, let alone in a world invaded by aliens. I read fiction partly to learn how people can do and be things I've never imagined; Butler's novels leave me with a rather empty feeling on this front, though in some ways *Dawn* was a quite satisfying read. Sheryl mentioned that the Xenogenesis trilogy should be discussed as a whole, and I agree that that might help, but I also remember that my reaction to *Adulthood Rites* was much the same when I first read it, several years ago. Maybe it's due for a re-read. -- Janice "sure, take my genetic material -- as long as I don't have to carry the baby" Dawley * Nikanj explains to Lilith that all creatures fear the unknown because it might prove dangerous. We know that this isn't completely true as far as Earth creatures are concerned. Anyone remember the stories about penguins and/or seals in the polar regions walking right up to human explorers because they had never seen them before and didn't know they were dangerous? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Lo Fidelity Allstars -- How to Operate with a Blown Mind "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:08:22 +0100 From: Ines Lassnig Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi all, Lyla wrote: >One attitude that was very prevelant from the humans >was a "Who do these aliens think they are? How dare >they?" stance that really irked me. I kind of felt >that these humans had no right to complain. Here are >these aliens giving you a second chance after you >completely destroyed your own planet. Who do you guys >think YOU are? > >Even in the sequel to DAWN the resistance movement and >all that jazz. It really bothered me. Perhaps working >with them would be best since you would be DEAD >otherwise!?! To my mind, this is a question Butler frequently raises in her novels: Whether to co-operate with alien forces or cling uncompromisingly to one's humanity/dignity. The question in itself is justified in a feminist context more than in any other, as I see it. What I've found so irritating about how Butler finally resolves this is that she offers not models for co-operation, where both parties contribute equally as far as this is possible, but models for collaboration at times. Some of you might recall Anyanwu's succumbing to Doro, and of course Lilith is doing nothing else. She collaborates with oppressive (even raping) forces. And what for? To preserve the lives of humans and their half-human children. But what's the price? She ultimately sacrifices herself and many others and humanity. And why is it always women having to make the self-sacrifice at all? Is Butler saying that compromising and partially giving up one's ideals (also speaking for a feminist objective) is ok? I am reminded of Joanna Russ' fervent pladoyer for uncompromising attitudes in What Are We Fighting For, and I must say I'd rather agree with Russ than with Butler in this. Because if one is to regard feminist SF as didactic at least in some ways, what's the message Butler gives us in depicting self-sacrificing women? I'm not saying that compromise per se is bad but there *is* a difference between compromise and collaboration. Self-sacrifice also seems to be made for some higher purpose or a higher Self, such as the species or the community. I'd like to raise the question whether this is *always* worth it? I agree that to survive it will be necessary even to collaborate at times, but to make it such a fundamental and pragmatic strategy as Butler does in her *feminist* fiction really irritates me, to say the least. Does anyone know of a SF novel where some humans carrying a deadly disease aboard a space ship rather commit suicide than infecting humans on earth? I forget the author. Or any other novels where this is resolved differently? On another note, Patrice Caldwell has something interesting to say on how Butler differs from mainstream SF in her depiction of the First Contact topos: http://www.enmu.edu/~mehaffym/gradweb/pc3.html Thank you for bearing with me, Ines ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 06:09:28 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It seems to me that a lot of the upset and irritation over Butler's novels (ALL of Butler's novels) is that most of us don't agree with her impression of The Way Things Are. One recurring theme in her work, for instance, is the idea that humans will never achieve any real communication with each other without some major biological modification. It may show up as telepathy (Parable of the Sower) or as genetic alteration (Xenogenesis), but she holds little hope that we will come to it naturally. Her views of race and gender relations are no more pleasant. But she has a right to these views, doesn't she? If you all will allow me a little biographical crit here, Butler is a black woman from the South of the U.S. who was raised by Baptists--I don't know what her economic class was. Her race, gender, regional affiliation, and religion would all likely have conspired against the kind of rosy "we can all get along if we only try" attitude that many of the respondents to this point have been searching for in her book(s). I would just suggest that we all stay with her. We may not agree with her views, but so what? In my own experience, I've found that it is the views of the people who upset me the most that I learn the most from. WHY do those views upset us? Is it because they remove hope? Because we fear she might be right? Because she's goring a few sacred cows? Because we've heard it all before, but from male writers and in a slightly different context? There are many, many possibilities, and some of them cause us to question some of our ideologies. As for her views on xenophobia...are there any anthropologists on the list? Are there any ethnographic studies which would illuminate typical human behavior amongst a group which has been so isolated that it was unaware of the existence of the outside world? Penguins may have blithely approached the first European explorers, but penguins are not humans. And finally, before criticising the book(s) too much, let's all be sure to have our facts straight. The humans do not all speak English, for instance. In fact most of them (this is explicitly stated in _Imago_) are survivors from Australia, South America, and Africa. The Oankali may be perceived as malevolent, but Butler's point--constantly reinforced--is that they are no less biologically determined than are the humans. They HAVE to trade for genetic material, just as humans HAVE to arrange themselves into hierarchies (in the scheme of the book). As a reader, one has to grant these two points before making arguments about the characters' motivations. Anyway, I look forward to more of this discussion. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:32:37 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > One recurring theme in her > work, for instance, is > the idea that humans will never achieve any real > communication with each > other without some major biological modification. Butler strongly believes that the human race is on the road to complete and utter destruction. A few weeks back on sci-fi wire she stated that we as a species are destroying ourselves and our planet with the pollution we create day in and night out. She doesn't have much hope for us and I believe this lack of hope comes across very clearly in her writing. > Her views of race > and gender relations are no more pleasant. But she > has a right to these > views, doesn't she? I find Octavia cool and something of an anomaly because she is one of the few and I mean very few black women out there who writes sci-fi. She has a different perspective on things and I like the chance to try on a new set of skin, to coin a phrase. > WHY do those views upset us? Is it because they > remove hope? Because we fear she might be right? > Because she's goring a few sacred cows? Because > we've heard it all before, but from male writers and > in a slightly different context? I don't know that I have read this view on things from male writers per se, but then again I don't read a lot of male written sci-fi. There is something lacking I usually find. I just finished Canticle for Leibowitz, another story about how humans are rather pathetic and fated to never rise above it all, but rather repeat the same mistakes over and over again. I guess I had a hard time getting into the book mostly because there was no female presence to be found. I don't agree with Butler's views per se, but I do like the fact that her books affect me in a visceral way. Being disturbed can be just as effective as being enlightened. > Penguins may have blithely approached > the first European explorers, but penguins are not > humans. And check out human babies, our natural inclination is towards curiosity, not revulsion. They will approach anything and to every mother's horror, put anything in their mouths. I believe we are taught to fear things that are different I don't believe that we are genetically encoded with that fear. Sharing some more Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:45:51 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > And why is > it always women having to make the self-sacrifice at > all? Is Butler > saying that compromising and partially giving up > one's ideals (also > speaking for a feminist objective) is ok? Yes, I wonder how the novel would have been different if the first person they integrated to their cause was male and if the male was to impregnate one of the Oankali. There are things about Lilith that almost remind me of an abused wife in the way she reacts to things and kind of negotiates with her true feelings. > Does anyone know of an sf novel where some humans > carrying a deadly disease aboard a space ship > rather commit suicide than infecting humans on > earth? I forget the author. Or any other novels > where this is resolved differently? Now there is an interesting take on things. I remember one day talking with my fellow commuters on the GO train from Hamilton to Toronto about how there are far too many humans on the planet and we need to thin out the ranks so to speak with a nice plague or something. I guess they were pretty horrified with what I was proposing. Humans are like giant termites eating away at every single resource on this planet and we are an infestation. We are everywhere! And we are also very hard to kill off. . .look at all these drugs we have to prolong our lives. But we believe we are morally entitled to everything on this planet and when other species get in our way we kill them off to make more room for us. As a species we are so unbelievably arrogant. I can just imagine when we start making colonies in outer space and we encounter the native lifeforms of that planet and try to convince them we are more superior and rape them of their identities and land. Go planet EARTH! Hmmmmmmmm. . . .maybe I do agree with Butler's views after all. Sounding off yet again Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:28:53 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Xenophobia To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 06:09 AM 2/8/2000 -0600, Sheryl wrote: >If you all will allow me a little biographical crit >here, Butler is a black woman from the South of the U.S. who was raised by >Baptists--I don't know what her economic class was. Her race, gender, >regional affiliation, and religion would all likely have conspired against >the kind of rosy "we can all get along if we only try" attitude that many of >the respondents to this point have been searching for in her book(s). I haven't gotten this message out of the discussion. I and several others have just been pointing out that there is a strange uniformity to the humans' reactions in *Dawn*. I don't doubt that some people would react extremely negatively to the Oankali. What I doubt is that they would all react as similarly as they do. I'm not looking for a happy ending or warm fuzzies, just a little more subtlety. An author who seems to feel much the same pessimism about human nature, but handles it in a more rewarding (to me) way is James Tiptree Jr. In her stories, humans are almost invariably doomed, but at least the doom takes on a wide array of forms! Her story "The Women Men Don't See" makes an interesting companion piece to *Dawn*, actually. >I would just suggest that we all stay with her. We may not agree with her >views, but so what? In my own experience, I've found that it is the views >of the people who upset me the most that I learn the most from. WHY do >those views upset us? Is it because they remove hope? Because we fear she >might be right? Because she's goring a few sacred cows? Because we've >heard it all before, but from male writers and in a slightly different >context? There are many, many possibilities, and some of them cause us to >question some of our ideologies. Has Butler's fiction challenged *your* views? How has it rewarded you? >As for her views on xenophobia...are there any anthropologists on the list? >Are there any ethnographic studies which would illuminate typical human >behavior amongst a group which has been so isolated that it was unaware of >the existence of the outside world? Penguins may have blithely approached >the first European explorers, but penguins are not humans. I have a BA in Anthropology. And as far as I know, there is no "typical human behavior" when it comes to first contact with another group of humans. Some react violently, some are interested in trade, some are friendly. The pre-existing culture has a lot to do with the group's reaction, as does the behavior of the people meeting them. The cargo cults in Melanesia post-World War II present a fairly obvious alternative to the xenophobia Butler takes as a given. During the war, Allied troops stationed on the islands bestowed great wealth (supplies, otherwise known as "cargo") upon some of the indigenous peoples. Though somewhat disorienting to the affected cultures, this was viewed as a good thing. At the end of the war the troops left, and various groups began to engage in (and are still engaging in, in some areas) a wide variety of ritual behavior intended to magic into being the much-desired cargo and usher in a new era of prosperity. Cargo is something they would much rather have than not. And the Oankali's ability to increase strength, cure disease and improve memory is something I imagine I would rather have than not if I were Awakened by Lilith. On the other hand, I *wouldn't* like to be forced to have babies. Other women wouldn't mind that so much. The pros and cons of the Oankali presence would likely be tallied differently by different people. The point I am making is that I find Butler's emphasis on a very limited palette of human behaviors to be tiresome and a serious limitation of her work. I can accept, for the sake of the story, her axiom that all humans are hierarchical; what I can't accept is that "hierarchical behavior" boils down to resentful looks, insults and fights. It's more complex than that. >And finally, before criticising the book(s) too much, let's all be sure to >have our facts straight. The humans do not all speak English, for instance. This seems to be a response to my last post (at least I don't remember anyone else mentioning it). I was making this point specifically about *Dawn*, since it is the book being discussed. All of the humans that Lilith is given to Awaken are English speakers. Nikanj specifically mentions it. Of course there are other groups of humans being Awakened elsewhere in the ship, but we never meet them. I may seem contrary, but I am enjoying the discussion. It's really picked up with this book! ----- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Lo Fidelity Allstars -- How to Operate with a Blown Mind "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 08:52:37 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Contact To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > I read fiction partly to learn how people can do > and be things I've never imagined; Butler's novels > leave me with a rather empty feeling on this front, I believe that Butler's works may leave readers feeling empty because her books do not contain a lot of hope. Her view of the world tends to be that all humans are inherently evil. Another post-apocalyptic book - Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing also acknowledges that evil exists, but she also believes in the power of good and ultimately that good will prevail. I suppose both viewpoints are needed to keep us in check, but I walked away from 5th Sacred Thing feeling a lot better about myself and others and also a tad enlightened about various ideas I hadn't opened myself up to before. Dawn left me feeling depressed. > Sheryl mentioned that the > Xenogenesis trilogy should be > discussed as a whole. Has anyone read the last book in the trilogy? I haven't yet. Would you recommend it? Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 09:09:24 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Men are seen as on the whole less adaptable to a > situation where they are > no longer in control. I would say that this is a > true characterisation. The > human men in the later books in the trilogy are more > interesting. Okay, perhaps there is a reason to read the last chapter after all. Overall the series was leaving me feeling rather grim :( > There is no knight in silver armor. True. True. Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 17:28:23 +0000 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's so great to see the discussion picking up again! And for one of my favorite books, too. I just love the idea of turning cancer into something positive. A few folks have mentioned doubt that humans would have such a visceral negative reaction to the aliens. I think this is actually probably more likely than not, and rooted in the "alien" seeming in many ways to be human. If they looked radically different from us, then it might be easier. But if they can walk and talk and even somewhat resemble humans (the "eyes" that weren't really eyes, the "hair" that was more like snakes), then that just computes to WRONG and the reaction is at that point instinctive. Consider how most people who don't fit society's "norm" are often shunned to a greater or lesser degree, from the physically disabled to the gender outlaws. Ask any very butch dyke for example how comfortable she is in women's restrooms, and she'll probably tell you that people can be outright hostile if you don't look like their idea of a woman. For an extreme case consider the case of Brandon Teena (there's an excellent movie playing now in the US about his life, called Boys Don't Cry.) If you are different enough, you are killed. So if you were awakened in a strange place and then confronted by this person who was so WRONG, I think that extreme response is believable. It's been a long time since I first read the trilogy and I'm now just partway through Dawn again. One thing I remember being surprised at the last time was why it was always assumed that merging with the Oankali was not human destiny. We as humans already have the basic idea of creating the next generation by two adults merging their genes, and how is this so different? Why is it more wrong than staying the same? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:35:39 -0600 From: Nancy Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Contact (SPOILER) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Re: Lyla, and comment on general depressing nature of Butler novels. Yep, they are largely depressing, though there is some resolution in most of her work. Never is there an unalloyed "happy ever after". Things do get more hopeful at the end of the trilogy, SPOILER******************************************************************** which focuses on the maturing of a hybrid ooloi, who itself makes first contact with an isolated human community. It is clear to a large proportion (not all) of the resisters that their community is failing and that the Oankali can offer them survival. Many foresee their lovingly built houses falling into dust for lack of progeny, and start to lose the will to do anything. A few humans from remote locales have been missed by the Oankali, and rare individuals still retain the ability to procreate. The colony is highly inbred and debilitated with neurofibromatosis type I (autosomal dominant, present in 50% of offspring), since one of the founding parents, the sole founding female or the stranger rapist, had it. The community breeds this founding mother to her own fertile son, since there are no other fertile men in the community (rapist long gone), with predictable genetic results. The founding mother is eventually worshipped as a new Eve, a symbol of hope, by the sterile larger community. It becomes apparent to most that the fertile line is too sickly to make it longterm. Given this, the Oankali offer of healing and reproduction now looks good to this human colony. And the young ooloi, being part human, is not quite as alien as the original Oankali. Dawn left me feeling depressed. >> Sheryl mentioned that the >> Xenogenesis trilogy should be >> discussed as a whole. > >Has anyone read the last book in the trilogy? >I haven't yet. >Would you recommend it? > >Lyla Nancy Phillips, M.D. phone:(314)577-8782 Pathology fax:(314)268-5120 St. Louis University Hospital email: phillinj@slu.edu 3635 Vista Ave. St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA aacgccaattgctatccccatattctgctaatcccgagcatggac ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:15:09 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU If any of you have the time or the resources, please check out Butler's short story "Bloodchild" (in the collection of the same name). In that story, it is the male humans who are impregnated by an alien species. The narrator is a young man who has to face the prospect of becoming pregnant with the grubs of his mother figure/lover/protector, who is a slug-like or insect-like creature (I'm not quite sure--I had a hard time picturing her). He loves his alien person, in a sense (maybe a Stockholm Syndrome sense), but he is understandably terrified at the prospect of being the host for her young. What makes it all worse is that a man who is hosting these alien grubs MUST have them taken out of his abdomen at the proper time, or they will eat him alive. The story is a good example of why we shouldn't necessarily assume that it is only women who must, in Butler's universe, make horrible sacrifices. She expects it of our whole species. Sheryl >> And why is >> it always women having to make the self-sacrifice at >> all? Is Butler >> saying that compromising and partially giving up >> one's ideals (also >> speaking for a feminist objective) is ok? > >Yes, I wonder how the novel would have been different >if the first person they integrated to their cause was >male and if the male was to impregnate one of the >Oankali. There are things about Lilith that almost >remind me of an abused wife in the way she reacts to >things and kind of negotiates with her true feelings. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:30:30 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Xenophobia To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Has Butler's fiction challenged *your* views? How has it rewarded you? Not a fair question at the moment. I'm just finishing my master's thesis, comparing her Xenogenesis to Samuel Delany's Tales of Neveryon. I'm a little sick of both of them right now. Ask me again in six months. OK, I'm kind of kidding. To be honest, I've been reading Butler mostly for her religious opinions. My thesis is a discussion of her twisting take on the traditional tropes (oh my--just reread that. Stop me before I alliterate again!) of biblical mythology and gender relations. Lilith HAS to be the first person awakened in the narrative, and she HAS to be named Lilith--she will always be a spoiler for one group or another. She has to be the first "mother." She has to make the "gods" rethink their position in re humanity. Since this does seem to be a trilogy which travels along a similar track as the Bible (both old and new testaments), humanity must be basically doomed (can I find 10 honest men? No? One honest man? No? OK, then, Sodom is toast!). Today I'm off into the New Testament parallels, in the third book, between Jodahs and Judas. IS he/it really a betrayer, and if so, of what? Humanity, or just of humanity's conception of itself? Jodahs' mates are named (doubting) Tomas and Jesusa. Didactic? You bet. Transparently allegorical? Sure. I was only partly kidding when I said I was a little bit tired of this writer. But I like anyone who is hard-headed and unrelenting in her pessimism. It gives me something to argue with. Someone mentioned Tiptree--I've only read one of her stories, but I loved it (Houston Houston Do You Read). And I like Joanna Russ, but I find her depressing in the extreme if I read more than one or two of her books too close together. For some reason, I can take more of Butler's pessimism than of Russ'. Good discussion, this. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:57:10 -0600 From: Susan Hericks Subject: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT BDG-Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Ines wrote: >To my mind, this is a question Butler frequently raises in her novels: >Whether to co-operate with alien forces or cling uncompromisingly to >one's humanity/dignity. The question in itself is justified in a >feminist context more than in any other, as I see it. On page 199 of Dawn Butler writes: "Curt and Gabriel were still drugged along with a few others. Lilith worried about these. Oddly, she admired them for being able to resist conditioning. Were they strong then? Or simply unable to adapt?" This question really stood out to me as I read the book, because for me it was at the heart of the discomfort the book causes. Is Lilith "adaptable" or is she a "collaborator" as Ines has suggested? I was actually frustrated by the resistance of the humans because it seemed to me that human faults, not to mention diseases, would be mitigated by the "trade" with the Oankali. The question of whether or not it is a "trade" seems to be part of the feeling of exploitation that many of the humans have. The relationship between the humans and the Oankali is significantly different than the relationship of Doro to "his people" in the Wild Seed books. While both stories deal with interbreeding for certain traits, Doro is clearly cruel and unashamedly uses threats and punishments to control people. The Oankali seemed very different to me, even though there is no question that they have the power to do as they please. The view of the Oankali as "masters" along with things like the human men feeling "like women" etc. made me wonder how much of the conflict is due to the humans' inability or unwillingness to accept that the Oankali power paradigm (and gender role set-up) is TOTALLY UNLIKE the human one. They (and we?) interpret the Oankali behavior through the gendered human hierarchy. For example, when Lilith meets Paul Titus, he asks if she perceives her ooloi as male. She says "I've taken their work for what they are." Then he says, "When they woke me up, I thought the ooloi acted like men and women while the males and females acted like eunuchs. I never lost the habit of thinking of ooloi as male or female." Lilith thinks this is "a foolish way for someone who had decided to spend his life among the Oankali to think--a kind of deliberate, persistent ignorance" (page 90). Consider: It seems to me that many of the humans refuse to broaden their perception of gender and power and, as a result, cannot feel other than exploited. This is why the Oankali won't allow the "resisters" to reproduce--because this inability to adapt and grow will result in the destruction of each other and the planet, as before. I could never fully buy Butler's portrayal of Lilith's ambivalence about her relationship to the Oankali. From the actual evidence, I could not really understand why Lilith was not even more fully allied with them. That is not to say that I don't see some of the exploitive potential of what is going on, but I actually wanted to believe what the Oankali said about their need to trade and, even more so, that their willingness to give humans quite a bit of freedom and a hell of a lot of other help proved that they were not malevolent, but genuinely operating with another power paradigm that was hard for humans to understand. However, I have to really agree with what has been said about Nikanj making Lilith pregnant without her knowledge. In the second book, Nikanj's explanation that this was only against "part " of Lilith's will made it even worse (Adulthood Rites). He says that she really wanted it (Joseph's child) but wouldn't ask for it. How awful! One other random thought that I had was in light of Arnason's _Ring of Swords_. In that book, the aliens are trying to determine if humans are really "people" based on our terrible behavior. It seems that in _Dawn_ the Oankali have made a sort of similar judgement in which humans, as is, are not really worth saving as a people, if we even are people, but we are well worth saving for our good qualities. Considering Butler's pessimism and the idea that we have to be genetically altered to see any improvement, which I don't ordinarily agree with, this argument seems pretty convincing in the context of the book. It's great that we have found a book that we actually want to talk about!! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:54:59 -0800 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 6 Feb 2000 to 7 Feb 2000 (#2000-22) To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > If any of you have the time or the resources, please > check out Butler's > short story "Bloodchild" (in the collection of the > same name). Thank you. That was the title of the short story collection. Bloodchild was my first encounter with Octavia's work. It is pretty creepy stuff. > The story is a good example of > why we shouldn't > necessarily assume that it is only women who must, > in Butler's universe, > make horrible sacrifices. She expects it of our > whole species. I'm going to have to hunt down that collection again, because I do not remember that story at all. I remember one that explained how telepathic humans came into being and how they are segregated and another about people who can't talk and people who can't see or something like that and everyone due to some catastrophe has one ability or the other. It creates a really screwed up society. There is another story that reminded me of Connie Willis' "the last of the winnebagos" too. I'll definitely have to scour the bookshelves and read it again. Thanks for passing on the title Lyla __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:55:08 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn/Contact To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU SPOILER ALERT (TRILOGY) >Has anyone read the last book in the trilogy? >I haven't yet. >Would you recommend it? > >Lyla I've read the whole trilogy and heartily recommend it because the issue of cooperation and the hope that some people mention are addressed in the complete trilogy--it's still fairly bleak, and the focus shifts from Lilith as a point of view character to her children. Since DAWN is part of a trilogy, it seems a bit unfair to make certain generalizations based on only the first novel........ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:36:54 -0500 From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > I just love the idea of turning cancer into something positive. Certainly an interesting twist. I'm not sure that I like the implication (which I didn't get from the book) that cancer is a positive thing. > A few folks have mentioned doubt that humans would have such a visceral > negative reaction to the aliens. I think this is actually probably more > likely than not, and rooted in the "alien" seeming in many ways to be > human. I expect there would be such a violent reaction from some people. Like others have said, though, I expect that this reaction wouldn't be across the board. Some people might have such a strong reaction. Others might have much less strong a reaction. On the other hand, living in a totally alien culture would probably put a heavy stress on just about everyone and the addition of that constant stress would probably push people closer to a dangerous/violent edge. I don't recall this being mentioned as a contributing factor in the book, though. > Why is it more wrong than staying the same? That's a point that I found kind of driven into the ground. Humans don't stay the same--we evolve over time. However, this is very different from the kind of changes that the Oankali are "offering". -allen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:48:55 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> I just love the idea of turning cancer into something positive. > >Certainly an interesting twist. I'm not sure that I like the >implication (which I didn't get from the book) that cancer is >a positive thing. Maybe the first book isn't explicit--it's been awhile since I read it--but the Oankali are able, because of studying human cancer cells and learning how they grow, to regenerate _any_ damaged or wrongly-grown tissue, human or Oankali. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 01:07:14 -0600 From: Susan Hericks Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jennifer wrote: >We as humans already have the basic idea of creating >the next generation by two adults merging their genes, and how is this so >different? Why is it more wrong than staying the same? I understood that the changes due to interbreeding with the Oankali would be a lot more dramatic than ordinary human evolution, as it were, but I also thought that the rage for human purity was extreme. I believe that some of the humans would feel that way, but not all. I am now reading _Adulthood Rites_ and I find Akin, Lilith's part Oankali son, the most interesting character in the series so far. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:56:22 +0100 From: Rowena Alberga Subject: [*FSF-L*] Oonkali morality and culture To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi everyone, I just joined this list and I was quite pleased to see that the first discussion would be about DAWN, a book I read some years ago and remember liking. Rereading it (and it two sequels) I was troubled by it much more than I remember from the first time. Strangely enough, I had a sort of positive impression from last time (OK humanity as it now is was doomed but strange and loving aliens would come and rescue us - I must have read it with a sort of big eyed little girl's love of wonder). Butler's description of humanity is quite grim and compared to this the Oankali seem to be presented as morally superior. Some things already discussed make clear that his is not so simple (most notably the unasked for impregnation of Lilith) but what about the Oankali's treatment of other animals, plants (and planets), they use and adapt plants and animals to fulfill their own needs, genetic manipulation in optima forma. Is any bothered by this? Lyla Miklos wrote: > One attitude that was very prevalent from the humans > was a "Who do these aliens think they are? How dare > they?" stance that really irked me. I kind of felt > that these humans had no right to complain. Here are > these aliens giving you a second chance after you > completely destroyed your own planet. Who do you guys > think YOU are? ++++++++++++++++SPOILER ALERT++++++++++++++++ But that is exactly what they have done ! Their ships need to eat a whole planet before they can travel through space. The Oankali *need* to travel through space (a biological need) just as they *need* the trade. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This 'need' is also a bit of a problem for me. Do the Oankali have culture ? They are very interested in human culture (remember Ninkanj explaining why the original human being is more valuable than its genetic print) but I haven't seen any sign of Oankali culture. In part 3 we can read that they don't have any stories that are not based on reality. So, Oankali need trade, humans will destroy themselves. Is anyone disturbed by this strong BIOLOLY IS DESTINY message this seems to be ? My apologies that my first contribution is such a long one, Rowena Alberga ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:04:06 -0600 From: Nancy Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I am not so sure that most humans would be thrilled to have slate-grey children with tentacles. Many or most humans aren't too thrilled to have biracial grandchildren, after all. And there the changes are minor and have nothing to do with major abilities, unlike the Oankali-human hybrids, who can do things by virtue of Oankali-ness that their human parents could never do. Some people adapt to "different" children, but deep down most would rather have a child that strongly resembles them. I do believe that human cloning, if ever made practicable, would be hugely popular even without corrective or aesthetic enhancements. At 01:07 AM 2/9/00 -0600, you wrote: >Jennifer wrote: > >We as humans already have the basic idea of creating >>the next generation by two adults merging their genes, and how is this so >>different? Why is it more wrong than staying the same? > >I understood that the changes due to interbreeding with the Oankali would be >a lot more dramatic than ordinary human evolution, as it were, but I also >thought that the rage for human purity was extreme. I believe that some of >the humans would feel that way, but not all. I am now reading _Adulthood >Rites_ and I find Akin, Lilith's part Oankali son, the most interesting >character in the series so far. > >Susan Nancy Phillips, M.D. phone:(314)577-8782 Pathology fax:(314)268-5120 St. Louis University Hospital email: phillinj@slu.edu 3635 Vista Ave. St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA aacgccaattgctatccccatattctgctaatcccgagcatggac ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:12:48 -0600 From: Todd Mason Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens: Phillips To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In my experience, some, rather than many or most, and most of them only until such time as the grandchildren are a reality as opposed to a "scary" concept. -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Phillips [mailto:phillinj@SLU.EDU] Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens I am not so sure that most humans would be thrilled to have slate-grey children with tentacles. Many or most humans aren't too thrilled to have biracial grandchildren, after all. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 06:33:38 PST From: Daniel Krashin Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Oonkali morality and culture To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:56:22 +0100 >From: Rowena Alberga >Subject: Oonkali morality and culture > >Hi everyone, > >I just joined this list and I was quite pleased to see that the first >discussion would be about DAWN, a book I read some years ago and remember >liking. Rereading it (and it two sequels) I was troubled by it much more >than I remember from the first time. Strangely enough, I had a sort of >positive impression from last time (OK humanity as it now is was doomed but >strange and loving aliens would come and rescue us - I must have read it >with a sort of big eyed little girl's love of wonder). Butler's description >of humanity is quite grim and compared to this the Oankali seem to be >presented as morally superior. Some things already discussed make clear >that his is not so simple (most notably the unasked for impregnation of >Lilith) but what about the Oankali's treatment of other animals, plants >(and planets), they use and adapt plants and animals to fulfill their own >needs, genetic manipulation in optima forma. Is any bothered by this? Well, yeah. To me the Oankali seemed like genetic imperialists: they come with their superior technology to other worlds and assimilate their genetic material. Sort of like a kinder, gentler Borg. Moreover, the aliens seem very comfortable with their role and lifestyle, at least in the first book of the trilogy. Even though they are masters of genetic alteration and might be able to change their own life cycle, they don't seem to see any need to do so. A lot of the biological determinism that runs through this series (the Ooloi *must* manipulate other races, humans *must* destroy themselves) comes from the Ooloi perspective. Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:24:10 -0800 From: Dave Samuelson Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Oonkali morality and culture To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Daniel Krashin wrote: > Moreover, the aliens seem very comfortable with their role and > lifestyle, at least in the first book of the trilogy. Even > though they are masters of genetic alteration and might be able > to change their own life cycle, they don't seem to see any need > to do so. A lot of the biological determinism that runs through > this series (the Ooloi *must* manipulate other races, humans > *must* destroy themselves) comes from the Ooloi perspective. This categorical imperative resembles that of the superior aliens in Doris Lessing's space fantasies. Not the exclusive province of either left nor right, totalitarianism is personal. Auden got it right in "September 1, 1939": shared by all, "Nijinsky's wish" was "Not universal love,/But to be loved alone" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:12:54 -0600 From: Susan Hericks Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Oonkali morality and culture To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Dan wrote: >> A lot of the biological determinism that runs through >> this series (the Ooloi *must* manipulate other races, humans >> *must* destroy themselves) comes from the Ooloi perspective. I may be repeating myself, but doesn't this raise the question of whose perception we concur with? Does perception=reality? If so, does the hierarchical human view of the Oankali as exploitive masters dictate their "reality" while the Oankali are not, as far as the text describes their culture and their own self-perception, NOT hierarchical? Things change in the 2nd book (and I presume third) when human-Oankali children begin to mediate the species' perceptions of one another. It seems like some of us are saying that the Oankali are "really" just "genetic imperialists" or totalitarians. From one perspective they are and I can relate to that). BUT isn't the fact that it's not so simple one of the reasons why this book pushes our buttons? Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:00:39 +0000 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn, and our reaction to aliens To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU After I sent my earlier posting wondering what was so wrong with evolving toward the Oankali, I realized what I think the answer is. Yes, evolution is natural, and yes, the changes that the Oankali represent are "beneficial", at least many of them are. However, for me it comes down to a question of choice. The humans are not given the choice of merging or not merging, and on an individual level are only passive participants. In a sense we've always been passive participants, not able to choose which genes are passed along. But it's not equal because the Oankali are NOT passive. But then again, Butler doesn't strive for fair. If the humans almost destroyed themselves, perhaps the best they could hope for is passive transmission of some of their genes. Her works are grim and realistic rather than pretty. Jennifer At 03:04 PM 2/9/00 -0600, Nancy Phillips wrote: >I am not so sure that most humans would be thrilled to have slate-grey >children with tentacles. Many or most humans aren't too thrilled to have >biracial grandchildren, after all. And there the changes are minor and have >nothing to do with major abilities, unlike the Oankali-human hybrids, who >can do things by virtue of Oankali-ness that their human parents could >never do. Some people adapt to "different" children, but deep down most >would rather have a child that strongly resembles them. I do believe that >human cloning, if ever made practicable, would be hugely popular even >without corrective or aesthetic enhancements. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 19:40:41 -0800 From: Allyson Shaw Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I've really been enjoying the discussion so far. I just finished the book last night and have been saving all the emails. After reading everybody's posts I have a much better sense of why this book fascinated me. I can forgive the wooden characterization because essentially, this is an allegory of co-optation. In most allegories, characters and things are symbolic-- represent something larger, and in doing so, become less distinct on their own. Jessie makes the point that humans are "invited to join the Oankali, but solely on their terms" Though the Oankali are "saviors," they drive a hard bargain-- making it impossible for humans to reproduce without them, destroying what was left of human culture and denying Lilith access to writing materials initially. This aspect of the book hasn't been tapped in discussion yet. If this is an allegory of colonial co-optation, then this destruction and denial of written language resembles the colonial take-over of a culture. Franz Fanon speaks of this process in The Wretched of the Earth-- that part of the colonial process is not just a claiming of land and labor, but of the colonized mind-- and all that fortified that mind-- i.e. culture. The Oankali want mind and body, and human intimacy-- the most precious elements of humanity. The fact that the Oankali are mostly sweet and rational, often moral and reasonable, makes their demands and their power even more insidious. Nancy pointed out that the heroes in Butler's books cut "morally ambiguous" bargains-- and if Dawn is and allegory of co-optation, of the process of colonization, then this makes sense. We can't look to the book for celebratory examples to follow-- the choices the oppressed make to survive are often compromised-- that's the nature of oppression. I've also read Kindred by Butler, and in this novel the protagonist is in terribly close proximity to her oppressor, and must make difficult decisions so that she can continue to exist. The most interesting aspect of Dawn was Lilith's alienation-- the more she sided with the Oankali, the more she lost what she really wanted-- to return to Earth, to try to be fully human again and be with other humans. It reminds me of Audre Lorde's words, "You can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools" But Butler creates a more intricate scenario, it's not about rebellion or dismantling the Oankali's power over humans-- the human race must make a bargain or perish. Lilith's version of rebellion, "Learn and run" is interesting, and makes me want to read the other books to see how this plays out. Rowena asked, "Do the Oankali have a culture?" And I think this is an astute question-- I haven't read the other books in the series, so I can only discuss this one. But the Oankali's technology is intimately connected to their bodies and to chemical biology. They can't or won't understand the human need to write and keep records. I suppose one could ask, why should they? Humans themselves destroyed most of those things in the holocaust, but still, the Oankali don't seem to have any cultural integrity themselves, they need others to reinvent themselves. This is an interesting parallel to the insidious machine of colonialism. Daniel has pointed out that the Oankali are genetic imperialists, and I have to agree with this point of view. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:17:48 +0100 From: Ines Lassnig Subject: [*FSF-L*] Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jennifer wrote: >After I sent my earlier posting wondering what was so wrong with >evolving toward the Oankali, I realized what I think the answer is. >Yes, evolution is natural, and yes, the changes that the Oankali >represent are "beneficial", at least many of them are. > >However, for me it comes down to a question of choice. The humans are >not given the choice of merging or not merging, and on an individual >level are only passive participants. This is precisely what I grappled with in Butler's sf! I found myself wondering why I mentally recoiled so much from her concept of change and I often didn't understand my own feelings - thinking that change must be something we should be striving for after all - until I realised that what Butler often depicts is a coercion into change and not a fair cooperation and exchange. Then again, she makes clear that the humans don't have a choice and would perish if they didn't cooperate. So if Butler's pladoyer for human societal change is meant to be a utopian impulse for her readers, I'm afraid I don't understand it that way. To me all of her fiction is pretty dystopian, offering only a very small glimpse of hope. I see her point, of course, but I can't always agree. And I understand that her position as virtually the only black feminist sf author contributes much to the way her fiction presents itself. Cheers, Ines ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:33:12 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSF-L*] taking off from DAWN discussion To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Although having a terribly hectic term, I have been following the posts with interest. Butler's work continues to challenge me--and in fact, I'll be including DAWN in my graduate seminar on "Texts and Genders" next fall. Also Bujold's ETHAN OF ATHOS! The question of the Oankali's treatment of humans and people's discussion of it linked up with an essay by a Native American writer I just taught in my 202 class: leads me to point to the extent to which we as a species felt no need to "ask" permission to breed and use other species for food and work. The extent to which African Americans were legally equated with other "property" by law in America has been analyzed, but a related point to that issue is that we treat "animals" as property. What makes us as humans think that another species should have to "morally" be obliged to show us any more compassion or to grant us "rights" than we have shown or given to the species we consume and use in various ways? I don't recall the name of the writer, but I do remember a nifty science fiction novella about a male (time traveller?) who ended up in a parallel time zone in which some "human" children were surgically treated and raised to be used as "cattle" (milk and by implication meat production). He is horrified and tries to save a baby (I think he fails), but when he gets back, he finds himself in an actual cattle barn and finds himself making disturbing equations. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:36:16 -0600 From: Robin Reid Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Dawn/Culture? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I cannot resist: >Rowena asked, "Do the Oankali have a culture?" And I think this is an >astute question-- I haven't read the other books in the series, so I >can only discuss this one. But the Oankali's technology is intimately >connected to their bodies and to chemical biology. They can't or won't >understand the human need to write and keep records. I suppose one >could ask, why should they? Humans themselves destroyed most of those >things in the holocaust, but still, the Oankali don't seem to have any >cultural integrity themselves, they need others to reinvent themselves. What definition of "culture" do you have in mind here? If by culture, one means only that which is written, then a large number of "human" cultures which did not (or do not) have a written form of their language do not count as culture........"writing" as a technology as only been around about 5000 years, from what I read, whereas the scholars seem to think we've been talking for about 100,000 (I read this recently in some discussion of why reading difficulties have to be understood differently than they have been, they've been doing some brain scans/imagine of the human brain while people read to show what areas are "active"). Robin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:14:19 -0500 From: Marcie McCauley Organization: @Home Network Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Dawn - Resistance To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'd like to think that I wouldn't be as repulsed by the appearance of the Oankali as Lilith was initially and as many of her fellow humans were; surely all these years of studying the positive power of difference and diversity would pay off in a situation like this, wouldn't it? But what gets me about this story is that I really don't know how I would react and I have to admit that what I like to think I would do might be a long way from the reality of my actions if I were in Lilith's position. Here in my seemingly safe little house, surrounded by other houses filled with other humans, without an Oankali in sight, I can hypothesize that breeding humans with an alien species might bring the best of both species to the fore, and be grateful that human life was given another chance in any form. But in Lilith's position, perhaps I would be just as angry, frightened, and determined to escape. I too found the passage where Nikanj tells Lilith that he has impregnated her troubling and it was the only section of the book in which I turned back the page to re-read. I felt that she was equally disturbed by the fact that it had occurred without her consent and by the fact that the child would not be fully human, but what stunned me most was that this all happened so quickly, that in only a few sentences all of this transpired. But isn't that just the way things do happen - the most definite turning points in our lives are rarely long, drawn-out processes, but are past in an instant and then we are left scrambling to pick up the pieces. What made me most angry however was that he assumed that he knew when Lilith was ready although she herself had not articulated this readiness. And yet I was so relieved when Nikanj was alive after the attack Curt led; I didn't want Lilith to lose him too. Would I really have reacted differently than Lilith? Really, what more can she do? "She would have more information for them this time. And they would have long, healthy lives ahead of them. Perhaps they could find an answer to what the Oankali had done to them. And perhaps the Oankali were not perfect. A few fertile people might slip through and find one another. Perhaps. *Learn and run!* If she were lost, others did not have to be. Humanity did not have to be. She let Nikanj lead her into the dark forest and to one of the concealed dry exits." (264) While I found parts of the story and the questions it raises upsetting, I wasn't left feeling that Butler's view was wholly pessimistic. Had that been my experience, I wouldn't have found myself searching the library stacks for the next volume in the trilogy. :) For me, although the Oankali are ultimately in control, I am comforted by the fact that Lilith continues to look for a way out, to believe, to hope that things will turn out differently than the Oankali intend. I think Susan raises an interesting point: perhaps the Oankali are operating within an alternate power paradigm that we humans can't quite grasp. The one thing I can state with confidence is that I agree with those who have said that Butler's writing is disturbing precisely because it asks more questions than it answers. Nothing is clear cut and while this is frustrating for the reader in us who might prefer a definite answer, it is also, I think, the most wonderful kind of writing as it forces us to search for our own answers and leaves the author's own conclusions somewhat ambiguous. This is the first Butler novel I've read and I'm grateful to have discovered it here amidst such a vibrant and challenging discussion. Thanks to all of you for that! Marcie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:48:46 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] taking off from DAWN discussion To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 08:33 AM 2/15/2000 -0600, Robin Reid wrote: >What makes us as humans think that another species should have to "morally" >be obliged to show us any more compassion or to grant us "rights" than we >have shown or given to the species we consume and use in various ways? Well, it's fairly important to the story that the Oankali do *not* treat humans as humans have treated other species on Earth. They communicate verbally with their captives and seem genuinely committed to integrating them into their families. They are curious about the various human cultures and find their distinctiveness valuable (it is explained that that is the reason the humans haven't merely been cloned and raised to take the Oankali for granted -- not very convincingly, IMO). They want to breed with the humans. In most ways, they behave as if they are a powerful, odd-looking group of humans, invading in a peaceful, yet inexorable and in some ways horrifying fashion. That's why the captives (and many readers) expect them to respond to moral arguments and talk of rights. More generally, I agree that humans on Earth treat many other species terribly, but I don't believe that this amounts to a collective "species crime" for which all of humanity deserves to suffer. Should vegetarians and animal rights activists be lumped in with trophy hunters and the Beef Promotion Board when the alien judges arrive? What kind of sense does that make? I'm reminded of the comment Lyla made (somewhat jokingly) that since nuclear war had devastated the globe, humans clearly hadn't measured up, so they had no right to complain about how the Oankali treated them. Granted, the anti-Oankali sentiment *was* rather one-note, but it seems more than a little unfair to blame these random people for someone's pushing the Big Red Button in Washington or Moscow. This idea of a species-wide responsibility or guilt is a theme I've encountered in science fiction many times, and it's bothering me more and more. I think it was Hannah Arendt who pointed out that "if all are guilty, none are guilty"; that is, a sense of shared guilt leads to head-shaking and shame, but little direct action to change things. *Dawn* certainly gives one the sense that there is no need to bother, since humanity, without alien intervention, is doomed to fail anyway. Why not just lie back and enjoy the sensory arms? ----- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Loop Guru -- The Fountains of Paradise "Almost any interesting work of art comes close to saying the opposite of what it really says." -- Gene Wolfe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:07:11 +1300 From: Jenny Rankine Subject: [*FSF-L*] (BDG) Dawn To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Responding to Allyson Shaw's post about Dawn being an allegory of co-optation - I see co-option situations as a consistent theme running through Butler's books. But it's not so much colonial co-optation; rather it's an individual woman in a relationship with a human male or alien who has all the power in the situation and who enables her to survive only at the cost of losing most of her integrity and autonomy. This was part of the Anwanyu/Doro battle in Wild Seed; it surfaced with another female healer character in a later novel of that series; it was in Survivor; and the one where the modern black woman goes back in time to repeatedly save the life of her white slave-owner ancestor (the name of which I've forgotten). To me, Butler seems to be examining strategies women can use in this situation to retain as much integrity as possible; the impact on a person of being in this situation for a long time; and the impact of it on her relationships with others who share her subordinate status. All the women she depicts have or take upon themselves responsibility for others who are oppressed by the person or people she is fighting - Anwanyu for her children and descendents; the protagonist in Survivor for the missionaries who adopted her; the modern black woman for the other slaves and her other ancestors; and Lilith for other humans. So Butler is examining women's personal battle for autonomy within relationships, which I see as an allegory for heterosexism; and she is also examining the strategies of one representative of a group trying to resist being taken over in some way. I hadn't picked up the Christian references in Dawn, and I have valued the discussion very much. So many people see things I never notice in books and it's neat to see them drawn out. Jenny Rankine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:08:41 PST From: Daniel Krashin Subject: [*FSF-L*] taking off from DAWN discussion To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:33:12 -0600 >From: Robin Reid >Subject: taking off from DAWN discussion > >Although having a terribly hectic term, I have been following the posts >with interest. > >Butler's work continues to challenge me--and in fact, I'll be including >DAWN in my graduate seminar on "Texts and Genders" next fall. >Also Bujold's ETHAN OF ATHOS! > >The question of the Oankali's treatment of humans and people's discussion >of it linked up with an essay by a Native American writer I just taught in >my 202 class: leads me to point to the extent to which we as a species >felt no need to "ask" permission to breed and use other species for food >and work. The extent to which African Americans were legally equated with >other "property" by law in America has been analyzed, but a related point >to that issue is that we treat "animals" as property. > >What makes us as humans think that another species should have to "morally" >be obliged to show us any more compassion or to grant us "rights" than we >have shown or given to the species we consume and use in various ways? > >I don't recall the name of the writer, but I do remember a nifty science >fiction novella about a male (time traveller?) who ended up in a parallel >time zone in which some "human" children were surgically treated and raised >to be used as "cattle" (milk and by implication meat production). He is >horrified and tries to save a baby (I think he fails), but when he gets >back, he finds himself in an actual cattle barn and finds himself making >disturbing equations. Believe it or not, the author was Piers Anthony! Before the Brain Eater got him and turned him into a boring old sexist hack. It was published in one of Ellison's "Dangerous Visions" anthologies, and I don't know where else. I think the title was "In the Barn." I agree with whoever said, though, that the Ooloi-human relationship is not quite that of animal and owner, not quite slave and master, not quite sepoy and sahib. I guess that's appropriate, since the ooloi are weird aliens. It's almost an allegory of modern neo- colonialism: the ooloi value humans for their culture, their genes, even their sexual potential, but don't consider humans their equals and aren't much concerned with our wishes or plans. Dan Krashin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:41:52 -0600 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] taking off from DAWN discussion To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >I agree with whoever said, though, that the Ooloi-human relationship >is not quite that of animal and owner, not quite slave and master, >not quite sepoy and sahib. I guess that's appropriate, since the >ooloi are weird aliens. It's almost an allegory of modern neo- >colonialism: the ooloi value humans for their culture, their genes, >even their sexual potential, but don't consider humans their equals >and aren't much concerned with our wishes or plans. > >Dan Krashin Where is the evidence that the Ooloi don't consider humans their equals? I note many places in the text which show them treating each other exactly as they treat the humans--almost patronizingly, and without much regard for what an individual says he, she, or it really wants. I think we ought to judge them based on the parameters given in the novel. That is, that when they tap into another person (species immaterial), they have information at the molecular level regarding that person's true desires. Of course, I'm not quite willing to grant that my hormones and pheromones are my whole self, but in the novel, this biological knowledge is the basis for Ooloi actions. They are, textually, almost never wrong, either, as far as we can tell (we don't ever find out if our species destroys itself again, of course). Finally, the Ooloi are not a pure species. They are the result of all of their previous eons of "gene trading," and they regard humanity as an excellent source for improving their own species. They don't seem to consider us any more or less worthy of individual respect than they are themselves. It's just not a concept they seem to understand. So I don't think that they see humanity as unequal. It is only our human perceptions which must frame the Ooloi behavior that way. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:03:50 +0100 From: Rowena Alberga Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Dawn/Culture? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Robin couldn't resist: > What definition of "culture" do you have in mind here? If by culture, one > means only that which is written, then a large number of "human" cultures > which did not (or do not) have a written form of their language do not > count as culture........"writing" as a technology as only been around about > 5000 years, from what I read, whereas the scholars seem to think we've been > talking for about 100,000 (I read this recently in some discussion of why > reading difficulties have to be understood differently than they have been, > they've been doing some brain scans/imagine of the human brain while people > read to show what areas are "active"). Hi everybody, I am sorry, but I haven't got a definition of culture. I have got a vague idea but that is not restricted to written objects. Maybe I can make it clearer by explaining why I asked the question (do the Oankali have culture) in the first place. I had the impression that all differences between Oankali groups were accounted for by biological differences. The Oankali always seek consensus, they don't have factions, no difference in world-outlook. Maybe it is strange to propose differences as an essential characteristic of culture, but maybe I could propose a tentative definition: 'the ability to develop in a direction not prescribed by biology'. This would lead to variety, one independent of biology. I hope I made my remark a bit clearer, Rowena ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 23:25:22 -0600 From: Susan Hericks Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: DAWN To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Where is the evidence that the Ooloi don't consider humans their equals? I >note many places in the text which show them treating each other exactly as >they treat the humans--almost patronizingly, and without much regard for >what an individual says he, she, or it really wants. I think we ought to >judge them based on the parameters given in the novel. That is, that when >they tap into another person (species immaterial), they have information at >the molecular level regarding that person's true desires. Of course, I'm >not quite willing to grant that my hormones and pheromones are my whole >self, but in the novel, this biological knowledge is the basis for Ooloi >actions. They are, textually, almost never wrong, either, as far as we can >tell (we don't ever find out if our species destroys itself again, of course). > >Finally, the Ooloi are not a pure species. They are the result of all of >their previous eons of "gene trading," and they regard humanity as an >excellent source for improving their own species. They don't seem to >consider us any more or less worthy of individual respect than they are >themselves. It's just not a concept they seem to understand. So I don't >think that they see humanity as unequal. It is only our human perceptions >which must frame the Ooloi behavior that way. > >Sheryl I agree completely, Sheryl. This whole human-perception-of the-Oankali-problem is what I've been trying to get at. I've been thinking about how the concept of fairness (or rather the unfairness) of the Oankali has come up in several posts. One thing I appreciate about Butler, even though it makes her books sort of painful, is that she knows that life is not FAIR! The choices we must make to survive are not made under fair circumstances, offered by compassionate equals who respond to our needs, our demands. I think Lilith really makes the best of a bad situation, and the situation could be much worse. At the same time, she never gives up looking for another option for humanity--an option that ironically comes about only through the efforts of her half human/half Oankali son in the later books. Susan