Date:     Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:36:41 -0500
From:     Rudy Leon <ruthleon@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:  [*FSF-L*] Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

I'm so sorry I'm late kicking this off, and even sorrier that this is less 
coherent than I would want it to be, but right now, I'm thinking it's better 
to get the discussion open, and I will be more coherent tomorrow!

This book was a surprise to me. I don't think I expected it to feel so 
*real*, and am really curious how people here felt about that aspect. 
Alternate futures fall under the scope of the BDG, but they are really so 
grounded in reality....

I've been trying to make the time to sit down and think through the 
comparisons between Gate to Women's Country and Walk to the End of the World 
and Fifth Sacred Thing, but have only been able to draw broad strokes in the 
time I've had -- let's talk about these though!

I think one of the things I liked best about the book is it showed the 
brutal compromises necessary to survive after The End arrives, in a way not 
displayed clearly by the other books I mentioned above. (People may recall 
that I desperately want the book that covers the time from the old women 
with Pick axes referred to in The 5th Sacred Thing, and the events of that 
book -- how do people make their utopia? How do they work the kinks? This is 
my favorite part about the 4th Charnas book -- sorry, title escapes me right 
now!)

I loved that it was about books as salvation (I'm a librarian), and how 
religion will make and remake the world (and possibly had little to do with 
the end of the world... ) -- I taught a class on religion in Fem SF many 
years ago, which is how I came to this list! And it was human scale, people 
making choices about community, in the face of an absence of the same.

So, was Mary right in taking in The Ark, knowing that their numbers and 
ideology would be a constant battle? Was this her stab at working with them 
to remake the future, or was it loneliness and desperation winning out in 
the face of company?

I have to run now, and hope I made some points clearly enough to kick off 
discussion.  I'll be back to clarify myself, and hope we have a good 
discussion of this book -- it isn't our usual fare!

Rudy


=========================================================================
Date:     Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:21:52 -0600
From:     Daliel Ben Zedes <zenome@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:  [*FSF-L*] BDG - Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

I just finished and found this book to be very moving but somewhat
difficult to read because of how much of it resonates with me personally.
I hope the lack of discussion about this book so far doesn't mean that Rudy
and I were the only ones to read it.  It's really quite unique among all
the SF that I have come across.  I definitely agree that the story feels
very "real" - Wren goes into nice detail about the decline and fall of
society and the aftermath.  You get the feeling it could really happen that
way.

One of the issues, maybe the main issue, of the book which really grabbed
me was the question of women's choice to have children.  What right do we
have to bear children in this world?  It's a question I think all women
must consider.  On just kind of a curious note - I don't think Wren ever
mentions Adam and Eve in the book - kind of strange, considering, right?

zenome


=========================================================================
Date:     Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:28:41 -0800
From:     Lee Anne Phillips <leeanne@LEEANNE.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG - Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

At 11:21 AM 10/30/2003 -0600, Daliel Ben Zedes wrote:
>I just finished and found this book to be very moving but somewhat
>difficult to read because of how much of it reasonates with me personally.
>I hope the lack of discussion about this book so far doesn't mean that Rudy
>and I were the only ones to read it.  It's really quite unique among all
>the SF that I have come across.  I definitely agree that the story feels
>very "real" - Wren goes into nice detail about the decline and fall of
>society and the aftermath.  You get the feeling it could really happen that
>way.
>
>One of the issues, maybe the main issue, of the book which really grabbed
>me was the question of women's choice to have children.  What right do we
>have to bear children in this world?  It's a question I think all women
>must consider.

It's been considered before.

In the Talmud, Sotah 12, the men decide, after learning that
all their sons will all of them be killed at birth, to divorce their
wives and renounce sexual relations with women since they
were all doomed to "labor in vain" anyway.

Miriam, later named "The Prophetess," rebukes her father,
Amram, a leader of his people, when she hears this, saying

    "Father, your decree is more severe than Pharaoh's;
    because Pharaoh decreed only against the males
    whereas you have decreed against the males and
    females. Pharaoh only decreed concerning this world
    whereas you have decreed concerning this world and
    the world to come.

    In the case of the wicked Pharaoh there is a doubt
    whether his decree will be fulfilled or not, whereas in
    your case, though you are righteous, it is certain that
    your decree will be fulfilled, as it is said: 'You shall
    also decree a thing, and it shall be established
    unto you!'"

Her father was chastened by this counsel from a young girl, and...

    "He arose and took his wife back; and they all
    [the men] arose and took their wives back."

Assuming that it is good to be alive, none of us can
know the future and what it holds. We know our children
will struggle, just as we have struggled, but the willful
descent into death is a grievous sin, since it denies
the possibility of change for the good and is profoundly
reactionary, looking back only to the past as containing
goodness, and despairing of any hope at all.

>On just kind of a curious note - I don't think Wren ever
>mentions Adam and Eve in the book - kind of strange, considering, right?

It's not a retelling of creation, but of the redemption
from "Egypt," which the Ark (at least) makes clear,
and the name "Mary," the modern analog of Miriam,
and the plagues which they survive.

At the point that the women in the Talmudic model
of this story decide to have children, there is no certainty
of anything, only the current reality of cruel slavery and
oppression. But the response of women (collectively) has
always been to hope for a better world and labor to build
it so that their children may inhabit it.

Despair, and the hatred that comes of despair and
cynicism, have always been more typical of men.

Entering into the wilderness, where they will
wander until all those now alive will die, Miriam
and all the women, just the women, dance and sing.

Although it is not recorded, the men were probably
amazed and dumbfounded, foreseeing only the
difficulties and already longing for the comfort of
their chains.

The Bible story, which the Talmud elaborates, can
be viewed as an argument between Moses, the "Arkite,"
and Miriam, who is not part of the cult of the Ark
but of an older and more essentially human spirituality.

In the Bible, Miriam was... punished? rewarded?
with a white aura that some called leprosy, and she
is depicted as losing the struggle, leaving the
official priesthood to shape the future of humanity.

But in this story, the future is left open, and Miriam
is in charge of the education of the young.


=========================================================================
Date:     Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:59:46 -0800
From:     Daliel Ben Zedes <zenome@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG - Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

--- Lee Anne Phillips leeanne@LEEANNE.COMM wrote:
> It's not a retelling of creation, but of the
> redemption
> from "Egypt," which the Ark (at least) makes
> clear,
> and the name "Mary," the modern analog of
> Miriam,
> and the plagues which they survive.

Where do you get that Mary is the modern analog
of Miriam?  You could be right, for all I know,
but then what does one make of the character in
Gift Upon the Shore actually named Miriam?  I
just automatically associated the name Mary with
Mary, mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene.  I
thought it interesting that Wren chose to
(warning - spoiler!) have Mary's child die in the
story.  Was he supposed to have been
representative of Jesus in any way?  And, if so,
what does that mean that he's born dead?  But I
think it's significant that Mary's full name is
Mary Hope - I liked to think that the outcome of
the story is that she is a mother of hope, that
the future of humankind depends on the hope for
our children, primarily through their education.

> In the Bible, Miriam was... punished? rewarded?
> with a white aura that some called leprosy, and
> she
> is depicted as losing the struggle, leaving the
> official priesthood to shape the future of
> humanity.
>
> But in this story, the future is left open, and
> Miriam
> is in charge of the education of the young.

Well, the character Miriam in Gift is certainly
punished.  And I would say that Mary is rewarded,
ultimately, through Stephen and the other
children.  Also, what can we make of the biblical
significance of Rachel's name?  Mary mentions at
one point in the book that she and Rachel always
thought that the religious references of their
names was ironic.

I think the story definitely is one of creation,
or at least re-creation.  Yes, I think it's also
about redemption, but I don't think you can just
discount the fact that they're trying to rebuild
humanity, in their own sort of Garden of Eden.


=========================================================================
Date:     Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:48:20 -0800
From:     Lee Anne Phillips <leeanne@LEEANNE.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG - Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

At 11:59 AM 10/30/2003 -0800, Daliel Ben Zedes wrote:
>Where do you get that Mary is the modern analog
>of Miriam?

"Mary" is a diminutive or nickname for the Hebrew
"Miriam," like Judy is short for Judith, Harry
for Harold, and John or Johnny for Jonathan.
Nowadays, one finds as many, perhaps more,
people named with the diminutive as one does
with the full, or original, name.

>You could be right, for all I know,
>but then what does one make of the character in
>Gift Upon the Shore actually named Miriam?  I
>just automatically associated the name Mary with
>Mary, mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene.

All these women would have been named
Miriam in actuality. The names are equivalent,
so Mary might well be an alter ego to Miriam.

This confusion in names and identities in regard
to Miriam is ancient, and some have taken
this to indicate that Miriam is an avatar of an
ancient Hebrew Goddess now forgotten
except as an archetype of the heroic and
prophetic woman who saves her people.

In the background of the Christian story,
one also finds three Marys, clearly the
Queen of Heaven, Inanna, Isis, or Ishtar
in Her three aspects, and more than a
strong echo of the Mithraic Sun cult of
the Roman Mediterranean, but I don't
see any great hearkening by Wren to
this thread of story here.

The name Miriam (Bitterness) has always
been deeply associated with mayim chayim
(living waters); Miriam suggests setting the
baby Moshe afloat in the waters of the Nile,
life-giving source of everything that was in
ancient Egypt, and remained behind to direct
another woman, Pharoah's daughter, in the care
of her brother, supervising the discovery of the
ark and the "gift" found there upon the shore;
a well of living water appeared in the wilderness
wherever Miriam was, because of her great
merit, but dried up when she died; the
celebration of the women upon the escape
from Egypt took place by the edge of the
sea, and was led by Miriam, one of the
seven female Prophets in Torah.

The people were so grieved by her separation
from them that they refused to move until
she had returned, just as Miriam had waited
by the living waters to ensure the safety of
her brother. One finds her mentioned again
in I Chronicles, by different names, including
Azubah (Forsaken), because she was
abandoned outside the camp and divorced
by her husband, a figurative death, and
Ephrath (Abundance), as whom Caleb
*remarried* and to whom was born a
progenitor of the line of David the King.

She's also called Helah (Sickly) and Naarah
(Maiden) in reference to her withdrawal from
the camp and eventual reappearance not only
recovered in health, but newly fertile, as if
she had regained her youth and beauty,
which might also refer to phases of the Moon.

It's very difficult to tell the players without a
scorecard, as they used to say about ball
games, and one can't do it by simply *reading*
the Bible.

The Miriam (Mary) who is described as
the mother of Jesus partakes of many of the
same attributes in popular culture, and
her appellations almost the same. This
is unlikely to be accidental, since Ephrath
is another name for Bethlehem, where
Rachel died and was buried. These names
are all of them simply fraught with meaning
and references to the story of redemption
found in Exodus.

>I thought it interesting that Wren chose to
>(warning - spoiler!) have Mary's child die in the
>story.  Was he supposed to have been
>representative of Jesus in any way?

Well, not in my reading.

>Well, the character Miriam in Gift is certainly
>punished.  And I would say that Mary is rewarded,
>ultimately, through Stephen and the other
>children.  Also, what can we make of the biblical
>significance of Rachel's name?  Mary mentions at
>one point in the book that she and Rachel always
>thought that the religious references of their
>names was ironic.

A strong clue, in my opinion, that there is such
meaning and reference, if only an ironic one. The
curious incident of the dog in the night-time was,
after all, that the dog did nothing at all. Rachel is
curious and powerful character in the stories
which are told of her. She is, in many cases, an
instigator of action rather than a passive subject
of the actions, and displays great cunning when
she falsely claims to be a menstruant when
she decides to steal and hide her father's idols.
In this, she is very like Miriam, the woman who
sets right the pattern that Rachel lost control of
by her death (in childbirth) and that led down
the primrose path to slavery and the exodus
to which Miriam (as Puah) was midwife. Rachel
and Miriam (Mary) stand at either end of a
historical process of redemption.

>I think the story definitely is one of creation,
>or at least re-creation.  Yes, I think it's also
>about redemption, but I don't think you can just
>discount the fact that they're trying to rebuild
>humanity,

But that's exactly what the passage from Egypt,
the "narrow place," is and creation isn't. The
central message of this story is that we are
not to take revenge, but to be open-handed
with strangers since we were strangers in the
land of Egypt, that the fact of being enslaved
doesn't give one the right to set up one's own
system of slavery, one's own cruelty to supplant
the cruelty one has suffered under others.

The fact that the Arkites are ultimately embraced
is a clear echo of Sinai, the culmination of the
passage from the narrow place (the birth canal?),
into adulthood, but one looked for in vain within
Genesis (which records the dispersal and
estrangement of humanity from a common
source) or, for that matter, within any empirical
Christology.

>in their own sort of Garden of Eden.

There is no new "Garden of Eden" possible
within a flawed world, one in which terrible
things have happened, in which horrible
crimes have been committed. Eden was
a place of innocence, while Wren's new
world is one made up of adults, filled
with regrets, memories, grudges, warts,
and all, but with the hope of building a
better world sometime in the future, with
the intention of gathering participants
in the joint repair of that which has already
been broken. Reconciliation doesn't come
in a blinding flash of "salvation" in which
the participants are really mere bystanders,
but is worked out slowly among people
with axes to grind.

There is no eschatology here, but process.


=========================================================================
Date:     Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:35:17 -0800
From:     Bridgett <mama@MAMAWRITES.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

Rudy Leon wrote on 10/13/03 7:36 AM:

> it isn't our usual fare!

Ugh! I'm about halfway through this book. I can't believe there hasn't been
more discussion about it. I just finished the part where Mary is slapped,
she falls into Luke's arms, he basically rapes her and then she agrees to
marry him and run off to some fanatical religious community.

Where is the feminist outrage I've come to expect from this group?

Will I understand better when I am done with the book? At this point, I'm
just glad I found a copy at the library and didn't waste money buying
this... thing.

Bridgett


=========================================================================
Date:     Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:14:47 -0500
From:     Rose Reith <rreith@RACORES.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

I too got my copy through interlibrary loan, mainly because of the
initial comparison made earlier to Tepper. So far I think I am only
about 20 pages or so into it, so I can't comment intelligently yet.
There are many things so far that puzzle me - especially all the
female animal names  Cassandra, and Diana...  The writing style does
make me think of Tepper.  I am definitely expecting something
significant here, and yet, if it really is a significant work, then
why isn't it on any of the usual lists of feminist reading material
or good books written by women?  I will admit that I am not an expert
on these lists, but this is the first time I have heard of this book
as far as I can remember.

Rose


=========================================================================
Date:     Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:14:51 -0500
From:     Gwen Veazey <gveazey@VISTATECH.NET>
Subject:  [*FSF-L*] Gift Upon the Shore - spoilers
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

Bridgett, thanks for your comment - I wonder if that violent sex scene you
refer to is supposed to carry a meaning about how some women will put up
with an abusive religion because of other benefits they get from it?  I had
a hard time thinking of Luke as a real person, although the author tried
hard with him, I think.

I’m enjoying the discussion on _Gift Upon the Shore_.  After a creaky start,
the story became compelling, often emotionally wrenching.  I wonder if the
tale could have started 50-60 pages in with  the deaths of Jim and Connie
without losing a great deal?  On the other hand, I thought the novel’s
strengths were the convincing details and thoroughness, also the careful
attention to characters.  And especially the hopeful ending.  This novel
offered serviceable writing, some good insights.  I underlined several
things.  Also liked the realism, unlike the magic-filled _Fifth Sacred
Thing_.  Wish I had known about this book when it came out in 1990.

I’m still wrestling with what I thought of the characters.  Some of the
dialogue and frequent arguments about religion seemed stilted, forced,
unconvincing.  Would this subject really be one of the first conversations
Rachel and Mary would have?  Would fundamentalists think blasphemous a
question about Jesus’s lineage through Joseph, or simply have an answer for
it - I’ve been told Mary’s line also goes back to David.   They’re
close-minded, rigid, but not idiots. I’m in awe of Rachel’s strength,
knowledge, kindness, wisdom, work ethic, and vision.  Was she real?  I think
I’d be afraid to be around Rachel, as I would fall way short.   Mary was
more whole although I had a hard time understanding some of her actions.
Also, readers are assured Mary gets no satisfaction out of the torturous
death of the Doctor, the agony of Miriam, but perhaps a more human Mary
would have.  It seems all the men remaining after the “End” were right-wing
nut cases.  Would I ever be that horny?  Don’t know.   Thank goodness for
the second and third generation of men in _Gift_.   I’m recalling the title’
s “Gift” refers to books, the collected wisdom of humanity, but the shore is
also where Mary saw the Ark children for the first time.

It’s difficult to create a good novel out of a belief system, an intent to
"prove a point."  It sounds as though most folks think Wren succeeded.  I
don't know.  Maybe I'm tired of religious analogies, metaphors, connections.
Some of it seemed heavy-handed, especially the “sacrifice” of the son,
Isaac, on the Knob.

Best,
Gwen (a recovering Southern Baptist)


=========================================================================
Date:     Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:47:11 -0500
From:     Rose Reith <rreith@RACORES.COM>
Subject:  Re: [*FSF-L*] Gift Upon the Shore
To:       FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU

Hi!  I am usually somewhat of a lurker, only popping out of hiding
once in a while...  I guess I have insecurity issues about getting my
ideas down in writing. Anyway, I want to thank whoever it was who
nominated _A Gift Upon the Shore_ . I really enjoyed it. I wish I had
been aware of it when it was first published. I am in the (long
project) process of trying to write a thesis about feminism and
utopia in books like this - specifically Tepper's _ The Gate to
Women's Country_, Charnas's _Holdfast Chronicles_, and Elisabeth
Vonarburg's _ Maerlande Chronicles_.  I am not totally sure that I
would have wanted to swop one of those books out to include this one,
_A Gift Upon the Shore_, but at the same time I can see how it would
have  fit in with the others. I agree with Rudy's assessment that it
compares with _The Gate to Women's Country_. There were times when I
was reading it that I really thought that M.K. Wren's writing & word
choice really sounds like Tepper's. As I read I would forget that it
wasn't a Tepper book. The parts with Rachel and Mary working to
survive really felt in many ways like earlier days of Women's Country.

It is interesting that this is the only book so far that I have read
of this type that actually starts before the disaster and covers the
time during the nuclear winter. I am amazed that anyone was able to
survive that cold, long, dark time, though I suppose that it makes
sense to have the groups who survive be the well prepared
fundamentalist enclave, and the militaristic freedom/survivalist
group because they are the groups that seem to be preparing for that
kind of eventuality. The other smaller groups like Rachel and
Mary and the group of couples who survived almost seemed like just a
fortuitous accident - if something like that could even be considered
fortuitous.

There is a lot to think about in this book. I wish that others had
had more to say because I'd like to know what other people thought
about the ideas in it.  I agree that the significance of books in it
is a welcome aspect. I know I am personally doing my part to give a
home to as many books as I can adopt /afford.  My home is getting
rather crowded, though it's not as full as other people's I am sure.
I think the knowledge in books is important for the people of a
future like this where so many people have been lost - the only way
to save that knowledge is for it to be in books.   That reminds me of
Tepper's Women's Country when Stavia and Morgot talk about how
important it is for the women to study & learn all the time  because
of how much they need to try to regain all the knowledge that was
lost because of the devastation.  It also makes me think of Tepper's
newer book, _The Visitor_, which I haven't finished yet, but which
has a section where the narrator from the present talks about the
government wanting to build a protected depository  where all current
knowledge and genetic information can be stored and saved for the
future because they expect a disaster that will  destroy most of the
life on earth.

And lastly, for now, I was saddened by the way the people of the Ark
were so cowed by the Doctor that they joined him in turning Rachel
away to die.  Why does it seem to be the case that there are two
kinds of fundamental religious groups - one kind that is charitable
and accepts people who are different, doesn't try to force them to
change unwillingly, and that is willing to aid others in survival,
and another kind that persecutes anyone who does not see the world
through the same lens that they do, who truly believes that anyone
who doesn't believe what they believe is damned, dangerous and
undeserving of compassion.  One guess that I'd make is that the
second group is ruled completely by fear of what is different,  while
the first group may also ultimately feel that unbelievers are damned,
but they are not afraid that the unbelievers will somehow poison them
or destroy their faith/convictions.  I mean really, would it have
killed the Doctor (who was a Real Creep) to have helped Rachel
survive?  Obviously the stress of the events around turning her away
ended up killing him anyway, so no matter what he lost.  What a
foolish, evil, pig-headed man.  And I found that scene where he gives
Mary the gynecological exam to be really offensive. I would have
kicked him if I were her, at the least I would have told him that he
could stop touching me so roughly if he knew what was good for him.
I really don't think that she ought to have put up with his crap -
and it was bizarre that she wondered afterward if it was
misperception on her part. I don't think she misunderstood any of his
behavior at all.

I apologize for this being sent so long after the discussion seemed
to have waned, but I looked for the book only after I read the posts
that you all made - especially this one that compared it to Tepper
and Charnas, and I was really rather impressed with it once I managed
to get it and read it.  I hope the discussion about it isn't
completely finished?  Did anyone else get it and read it late?

Peace,
Rose