Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 14:58:05 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Additional writings To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU MISTS OF AVALON ADDITIONAL WRITINGS Part I: Internet publications ONLINE REVIEWS: Tons of them out there, mostly short and gushing; a sampler: Review by "Jenn" http://www.trail.com/~finnian/avalon.htm Review by Althea Morin http://www.sf-fantasy.com/br16.htm Reviews by readers, some of them young http://www.octonet.com/~avalon/misava.htm http://www.asd.k12.ak.us/Schools/West/Reviews/~Avalon/AvalonReview.html http://www.pleiades-net.com/choice/books/TMA.1.html LISTS: Two lists heavily discuss MOA: the Mercedes Lackey list and Arthurnet part of the Mercedes Lackey list archives: http://www.herald.co.uk/pub/lists/lackey-archives/960423-496 Arthurnet has a greater concentration of historians and academicians Arthurnet description: http://dcwww.mediasvcs.smu.edu/Arthuriana/Arthurnet.html A typical thread dealing with Bradley/MOA: http://www.mun.ca/lists/arthurnet/arthurnet.log9404b On Women in Arthurian legend: http://www.mun.ca/lists/arthurnet/arthurnet.log9709b An excerpted discussion on Arthurian Sexualities: http://dcwww.mediasvcs.smu.edu/Arthuriana/sexuality.html ESSAYS: Arthurian Fantasy, 1980-1989: An analytical and bibliographical survey. By John J. Doherty [Highly recommended 5-part survey of Arthurian fiction, focusing on 80s works; extensively annotated] http://dc.smu.edu/Arthuriana/BIBLIO-PROJECT/DOHERTY/doherty.html part II: The Influence of Mary Stewart on the Early Eighties [Contains comparison with MOA] http://dc.smu.edu/Arthuriana/BIBLIO-PROJECT/DOHERTY/partii.html "Unthreading the Banner" by Matthew Kilburn (from website of Oxford Arthurian Society) [on pop-fic on Arthurian legend; comparison of Helen Hollick's The Kingmaking to MOA] http://users.ox.ac.uk/~arthsoc/Cauldron/hollick.html MZB's MOA and interpretation of the Chivalric Codes; a section of Chivalry through the Eyes of Arthurian Legend Authors, by Ty Carss [includes a bibliography and link to a page of Arthurian-topic paintings] http://coyote.csusm.edu/public/carss001/chivalry/bradley.html Index: http://coyote.csusm.edu/public/carss001/chivalry/index.htm Women in the Arthurian Legend: A growing trend in fantasy literature by Allison Barrett, age 15 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/library/bpl/child/booklook/women.html MISC: private Avalon appreciation page: http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/physics/152/mist.html scan of the German cover: http://unet.univie.ac.at/~a9600697/lady.htm and a surprising number of courses (University and other) that give MOA as required reading. A sample course discription: The Arthurian Legends as the Central Myth of Our Culture and the Process of Individuation; John Giannini, C. G. Jung Institute, Chicago http://chicago.jung.nidus.net/w98_17.htm ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:02:46 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's finally time to start our discussion of Marion Zimmer Bradley's epic _Mists of Avalon_. This book has been out for quite some time, and even spent time I believe on the NY Time's bestseller list (correct me if I'm wrong, please) or some other bastion of the mainstream, which is surely not the norm for books that our group discusses. As Kathleen's lovely on-line bibliography demonstrates, there is no lack of material out there already if you haven't already formed some opinions of your own. Dive in! Remember the rules: 1. Opinions are fine, negative or positive, just try to give examples and avoid vague personal attacks on the book or the author. At this point I don't know that Bradley's joined our list, but so far we've had all authors present for our discussions. 2. Try to avoid re-posting entire messages, especially if you're just adding something like "Yeah, what she said". Just include the relevant parts you're responding to. Here are some questions to get you started, although I doubt this will be necessary: - Why do you think this book was so popular and had so much crossover appeal? - Do you think the length was justified? Why or why not? - What did you particularly like about this book? - Feel free to compare/contrast this with other renditions of the story. Historians among us, please point out any discrepancies or contested points so the rest of us know how much of this counts as education. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 12:16:55 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG additional reading, addendum To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU A couple of things I left out: Amazon book page has 119 reader reviews Bradley homepage, in connection with MZB Fantasy Magazine http://www.mzbfm.com/ Bradley tribute page: (from the Darkover site) http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~rossi/darkover/mzb.uk.html I've been scraping together references for hardcopy reviews and critical writings, but this takes a little longer. I have found that MOA made a great impression on German readers, and has inspired at least one critical book in that language. If anyone has any suggestions or citations for the hardcopy additional reading list, please send them to me. Thanks, Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:07:04 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Kathleen M. Friello" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Additional Reading, Part IIa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Part IIa: Printed publications Monkia Essl. _Die Rezeption des Artusstoffes in der englischen und amerikanischen Literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts bei Thomas Berger, Marion Zimmer Bradley, E.A. Robinson, Mary Stewart und T.H. White_. Lewiston, NY : E. Mellen, 1995. Richard Kimpel. "The Mists of Avalon / Die Niebel von Avalon: Marion Zimmer Bradley's German Bestseller." _Journal of American Culture_ 9 (Fall 1986): 25-28. Susan Morrison. "Inscribing Feminine Desire: Malory's Gender Politics Refashioned in The Mists of Avalon." _Forum: Materialien und Beitrage zur Mittelalter- Rezeption_. Vol. 3. Rudiger Krohn, ed. Goppingen: Kummerle Verlag, 1992: 189-201. Mention/entries in: Thomas D. Clareson. "Star Cuts." _Extrapolation_ 24 (1983). John Clute and John Grant, ed. _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_. London: Orbit, 1997. Thelma Fenster, ed. _Arthurian Women: A Casebook_. New York: Garland, 199? [cited on Arthurnet] Maureen Fries. "Trends in the Modern Arthurian Novel." _King Arthur Through the Ages_. Valerie M. Lagorio and Mildred Leake Day, ed. 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1990. Norris J. Lacy, ed. _The Arthurian Encyclopedia_. New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1986 [pb: NY: Garland, 1987] Charlotte Spivack. _Merlin's Daughters: Contemporary Women Writers of Fantasy_. London: Greenwood, 1987. Raymond H. Thompson. _The Return from Avalon: The Arthurian Legend in Modern Fiction_. Westport, Conn., 1985. More to come, I hope, in Part IIb, including reviews. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:43:10 -0700 Reply-To: lynnx@MC.NET Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hello I'm new to the list, so I'm glad you're doing a book I've read and enjoyed. I'd like to think that one reason this book was so popular was that it was so well-written, although the subject matter along would have guaranteed an audience and the author's name a core group of fans. It was one of the few fantasy works I've read in the last few years where I actually curious to find out how it would end. Quite an accomplishment, given that the outline of the story is so well-known, but of course there was a lot going on besides the traditional story. On the other hand the traditional story is a blending from a lot of sources, and I'm not sure how much of this was from yet another tradition and how much the author's imagination. As for the historical accuracy, well-take behavior from several centuries and add in magic. Why assume any historical veracity at all? Carol Mitchell President Chicagoland Costumer's Guild ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 21:04:35 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU First of all, I must admit that I had no idea about the "original story" behind this book before I read it, and I still don't. The only story involving King Arthur and the gang I have ever read was Mark Twain's "Yankee at King Arthur's Court", which was pretty much a parody if I remember well. That was the main "point of reference" I had in my mind while reading The Mists. In fact, I used to think that "Avalon" was something from the Bible. I also remember the article about a theory that the Round Table became "round" as a result of a bad translation either to or from Latin, and that originally it was simply "guest table" or something else irrelevant to its physical shape. Having the fact of growing up in another culture as an excuse to my complete ignorance about the Arthurian world, I hoped that it might help me to perceive this book by itself rather than a new variation on a centuries-old literary tradition. I think one of the reasons the book became popular is the fact that it uses the "soap opera" format -- which is not necessarily bad. It has several basic characters that are completely entangled with each other, through the relations of blood, romance, or both, they conspire against each other, make alliances, fight over property -- very much like everyone's life. Even though it's a fantasy, it very realistic. It's also interesting to see powerful people who shape the history as simple mortals with disfunctional families. Another reason it's popular, to me, is the fact that it describes "the end of the world as we know it" -- the death of old social order and it's replacement by a new one, like in Gone with the Wind, or the stories about the fall of Rome. An end of the world is always fascinating, especially when you don't have to live through it. I personally liked the book because of the character of Morgaine. She is a strong woman at her best, even though her blind following the "needs" of her religious institution, IMHO, did not do her a whole lot of good. In fact, I think (and a lot of people probably won't like this) that the Avalon rulers in this story did not act that much different than any other leaders of a state religion that would be losing its priviledged position. After all, when the government of a country is based on religion (or any certain ideology), there can never be more than one of it. It seems to me, this was what did Avalon in -- the fact that they tried to mingle in the affairs of the state when they no longer had the influence to do so. And the burden that Vivian put on Morgaine and others for the sake of keeping that power simply crushed them all. I found The Mists of Avalon a very sad and tragic book, even though very beautiful. The characters pretty much failed in everything they were trying to do, and for which they sacrificed so much. I think that "keeping Saxons away for the few decades till they became civilized" was a pretty lame consolation. The tradition of Celts, the religion of Druids, the history of their kings -- all that still got completely wiped out. There was so little left other than the legends that no one really knows what happened there and the modern theories all conflict with each other. Which is pretty sad, IMHO. It seemed to be a beautiful world. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:40:51 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Some thoughts on Mists: - A refreshing twist of *focus* to the women characters' perspective with a feminine, rather than feminist writing style, in the context of a traditionally masculine heroic saga. And I suspect the popularity of the book, particularly with young women readers, is at least partly due to the excellent characterisation. Many of the women characters tend to spend much time and angst, mourning love betrayals or losses, similar to teenage romantic novels. I suspect this may also account for its popularity:)) However, unlike most B-grade 'romance', or even historical pulp fiction novels, _Mists of Avalon_ is far better written. - pleasing departure from the classical "good vs evil" formula. Personally, I am not a great fan of the fantasy genre, rarely read it and find the good-guys-vs-bad-guys (or girls) formulae boring. MZB's characters display the entire spectrum of good, bad, warm, cold, beautiful and ugly. - the theme of the conflict between the Old Goddess-based Religion and the newly emerging Christianity, MZB to her credit again, did not use a standard "good-vs-evil" conflict vehicle. Both religions are painted as far less than perfect, although the Old Faith is probably presented as the more spiritually rich and complex of the two. Some of the religious/spiritual scenes, are moving examples of a complex faith rich in female symbolism. For example, descriptions of the Grail, ritual blessings and Arthur's initiation in the King-making rites etc. These scenes may also account for much of the book's popularity with women readers, particularly for those who may have difficulty relating to the primarily masculine symbolism of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. If not taken as 'fact', the novel can serve as a useful starting point for further reading/enquiry into Goddess-based religious experience. Unfortunately, most of these scenes are minor scenes in the novel. - historical innaccuracies, some of which are glaring, I find to be a minor criticism of Mists. When all is said and done, the book is a work of fiction, the events and even the religions of the novel, are just as much a product of the author's imagination as are the characterisation and much of the plot development. - length of the novel: again I see this as a minor criticism. Overly long descriptions of cold, drafty castles, and umpteen paragraphs describing every detail of forest leaves, whilst irritating, can easily be skimmed through. It could have been improved by better editing, perhaps. As with any long, complex story there are times when the plot appears disjointed, interrupting the "flow" etc - but again this is minor, although it may disturb some readers more than others. - A *feminist* novel? I don't think so. For a start all the women characters can only achieve power through men. They use mostly traditional feminine ways of trying to achieve power: their sexuality and/or emotional manipulation. Morgaine spends much time mourning her inability to overcome incest taboos, which prevent her from becoming the 'power behind the throne'. And she needs Accolon to fight for Avalon - Damsel in Distress? When Accolon fails to win power for the Lady of the Lake, Morgaine mourns the loss of her lover, far more than the downfall of her religion, which is supposedly her main work/purpose in life, for which she was born. Niniane is presented as weak, passive and ineffectual in her relationship with Mordred. She finally asserts herself, and just as I as a reader start thinking, "Go, Girl, Go!" - she is killed. Gwynifir is presented as the stereotype of the beautiful but shallow woman, whining and bitchy and piously guilty over her sinful lusting for Lancelet. The only character I really liked, was Morgause - but even she comes to a bad end, becoming somewhat insane and twisted. - From a feminist POV then, I was often disappointed. Despite the portrayal of the women not as victims, but as strong women with the power to play large parts in the course of events, the women always lose. Not passive victimised losers perhaps, but still losers. They lose their lives, their children, their battles - (for good or evil), their sanity, their status, and at the end, even their own spirituality and religion. Maybe this is why I cried at the end. Even the Goddess & Avalon "fade away" as proud, tragic defeated figures at the end. I found Morgaine's testimony at the end attesting to peace, acceptance and tolerance of Christianity, a little annoying as well as tragic. Not only must women always lose, they must "lose with good Grace". Nonetheless, it is to MZB's credit as a writer, that I was able to feel the tragedy so keenly. In summary though, I thoroughly enjoyed the novel for its vivid descriptive language, its refreshing *twist* of focus to the feminine viewpoint of a classic masculine legend, and most particularly its complex characterisation which is usually lacking in the fantasy genre. Many of Bradley's characters in Mists were exceptionally well-drawn, and I found myself being able to laugh, cry, lust, hate and love right along with many of them, and enjoy the story as a wonderful, imaginative romantic adventure. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 07:27:52 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I had one major problem with Morgaine. She alternated between blind obedience and blind rebellion, and in consequence, when careful thought and planning would have served her well, she went off like a badly made firecracker. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 09:35:51 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Here are some of my initial comments: 1. I wish it had been shorter, but I think what made it long (the stuff about the religions) also made it worth reading. 2. I take back what I said about Halfway Human being too sad or depressing. At least Tedla had a reasonable chance at some happiness. These poor people in Mists never had a chance, and the reader never had a chance to think it might end happily either. It was just one long depressing descent into oblivion or hell, depending on the character. 3. I agree with Julianne that the most interesting character was Morgause, but I think Bradley tried to make her the "bad" character instead of pursuing those aspects that made her the most independent. I had trouble believing that Morgaine could persist in being so unhappy, given her priviledge and education and talents. Although in the end, would it have made that much difference if she had achieved her potential? Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:27:46 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: [*FSFFU*] MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU To my mind, one of the important virtues of MZB's lovely book is the fact that it has added a dimension to Arthurian studies. Once having read MOA it is impossible to consider the Arthurian saga without thinking of the women -- not just Guinevere. By extension, it leads one to consider other heroes and wonder about the women in their stories as well. No mean achievement. I love this book: the taste of it and the imagery in it, and the tragedy of it. (Enjoy MZB's other ones as well. Recently pulled out all the old Darkover novels and read them in sequence. Quite satisfying.) I've had several students (junior level, college) tell me that MOA made them think differently and more positively about themselves as women and also made them ask questions about patriarchal religions. It was enriching for them. Best Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:49:16 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I agree with what a lot of people have said about MoA being a tragedy; but what's interesting about this to me is that I didn't see it that way the first time I read it. I found it exciting and inspiring: all these women running around and doing stuff, right there in the middle of a legend I'd read or seen or heard about dozens of times. The Arthurian legends are so deeply entrenched in our culture (and here I mean the US, so I imagine it's even more so in Britain), and I was so into them at the time I first read this book, that it seemed like a whole second cast had just showed up on the stage of a play I knew very well. But this time, it was a cast of people like me. I loved that. Also the depiction of Avalon's religion fascinated me, and I think I just ignored the fact that every main character lost in the end. I don't even remember the last hundred and fifty pages; maybe I didn't read them. I'm curious as to whether people find it less depressing the first time they read it, or if it's just that I was too young (thirteen or so) to be paying a lot of attention. Is it feminist? Several people have said no, but I think maybe the definition of "feminist", as used here, is a moving target. It's been said that it's not feminist "enough" because it doesn't push against sexist stereotypes and because all power in the story is gotten through men; but thirty years ago, if someone had taken a classically male myth about men and rewritten it so that the important people were women, I bet we would all have called it feminist. I can't read T.H. White's series now -- I'm still fond of The Sword In The Stone, but in the later ones Morgan le Fay appears as a really hideous creature and I can't stand it. So my perception of a cultural icon has been wholly changed, and it's changed what I do and what I think. Isn't that what feminism is all about? And wasn't the passing of women from direct to, at best, indirect power part of Avalon's decline? I didn't see that as Bradley's failure to give her women independance, but as the symptom of The New Age. Our recent discussions of convents notwithstanding, the Christian Church of that era was pretty repressive to women (especially when compared to Bradley's proposed previous religion). jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 19:19:33 +0100 Reply-To: terriergraphics@cybertours.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Terri Wakefield Organization: Terrier Graphic Design Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > - Why do you think this book was so popular and had so much crossover appeal? The Arthurian Legend has been a part of many cultures for hundreds of years. It is about pride, and justice, and chivalry. It is about a sense of belonging centered around a moral code of leadership and loyalty. Let's face it however, it was a boys and mens fraternity.... MISTS OF AVALON changed all that..... MZB, whether she meant to or not, gave us a Feminine Arthurian Legend. Now we could play this game with the big boys... No more shadowy, weak figures in the background. Now *we* could make things happen, and I was thrilled!! Had I read MOA as a youngster I probably would have been riding my imaginary white horse around like character from Monty Pythons Holy Grail ! Wooohooo... That's what MOA was for me sixteen years ago..... This time around I more aware of its many flaws, not the least of which are the insipid Gwenhwyfar, and the self righteous Morgaine. I found myself liking Igraine, who was fortunate enough to die early on, and Morgause, who was at least honest with herself, better than either of the main characters. Morgaine and Gwenhyfar seemed to be constantly plotting to manipulate the lives of others, and having their efforts always to end tragically. The Tales of Arthur generally end in tragedy, but it is at least a glorious shining defeat, not a slow agonizing fade into nothing. Many thanks to Kathleen. I visited almost every one of those sites and even joined the Arthurnet mailing list. One of my favorite sites is The Enchanted Forest at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2769/arthur.htm Be prepared to spend some time down loading as a lot of lovely art work is part of this site. Some related books which I have enjoyed are BELOVED EXILE by Parke Godwin, a very different portrayal of Guenevere, Fay Sampson's DAUGHTER OF TINTAGEL about Morgaine Le Feye, and RETURN TO AVALON an anthology dedicated to Marian Zimmer Bradley. For films I recommend John Boorman's visually stunning EXCALIBUR and the irrepressible Monty Pythons Quest for the Holy Grail. Terri ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:26:54 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] MOA BDG To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU What is a feminist novel? Is it one which expounds a feminist agenda using feminist style and characterization or is it one that ecourages females to feel their worth and power? Using the latter definition I call Mist of Avalon a feminist novel. Did you read any of the email reviews written by girls and women who read the book as young as age 12 or after they had already had children of their own? They said the book changed their lives. How many well known legends are there that show women as whole people with thoughts and actions and a spirituality of their own? Bradley took a very well known legend and turned it around to show women's lives, and women are liberated just to have had their stories told. She could have written a truly feminist book in which Morgaine and the ladies of Avolon win, Christianity is pushed out of the isles and Morgaine becomes Queen of all Britain. Or she could have written a book set in America or Argentina and had powerful women ruling kingdoms there. Those would have all been interesting. But those aren't the stories she wanted to tell. In order to tell the women's part of the Arthurian legend she had to write under certain constraints. Britain is after all a Christian nation, she had to get to that end. Christian countries are patriarchies, rule is passed father to son, women rule only if there's no male alternative, those are the rules she had to work around. What's interesting to me is that even though Avalon receded into the mists, even though the goddess based religion didn't prevail, women are inspired just from the idea that there could be a religion in which they held spiritual authority, they directed their own lives, chose their own lovers, went where they wanted and men were not to presume to direct them. This idea changes the lives of females who read the book. This idea has been the force directing women toward goddess based religions. It's a big fat book, and it's had a big fat influence on women's lives. Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?Nÿ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 15:17:13 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU <<- A *feminist* novel?>> IMHO, there is one thing to keep in mind here. According to introductions that MZB has written to short stories in the Sword and Sorceress anthologies, she does not consider herself a feminist. In fact, she has expressed some hostility toward feminists and feminism as a movement. Something in the nature of, "where were they when I needed them?" and "I made it without any movement, any *good* woman writer should be able to do the same" Perhaps an extension of our earlier discussion about the need for minority writers (women, lesbians, people of color, etc.) to be exceptional, never mediocre? BTW, these are *not* accurate quotes, just my impressions from things I've read over the years. In spite of that, I think that MZB does a good job of raising the "feminist consciousness" bar for a mass audience. Maybe things that we were exposed to long ago; women choosing their own lovers, having absorbing careers and commitments, their own spirituality, still need to be mythically reinforced within our society as a whole. It's certainly not cutting edge feminist theory or spirituality, but everyone needs to start their feminst odyssey somewhere. Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:54:55 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU If reading MOA could change even one girl or woman's life for the better, and cause them to question patriarchal religions, then all my criticisms seem petty and I salute Bradley in her achievement. There's room for this as well as versions with more radical (and less mainstream) feminist revisions. Thank you already for this discussion. I've been putting off reading this book for years, and then when I read it, my suspicions were confirmed. But the comments so far have taken me outside of my little world and shown me the greater subversive potential of this book, and now I'm glad I read it. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:13:07 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's funny, but everyone who complains about Mists being too long, do it for different reasons: 1) too much nature description, i.e. leaves, woods, etc; 2) too much religious stuff; and so on. To me, the most irritating "long" stuff were the perpetual "romantic" scenes: Morgaine obsessing over Lancelet while he is whining about his unhappy love life, queen Gwen obsessing about Lancelet and her religious duties, Lancelet obsessing about Gwen and Arthur, Igrain obsessing over Uther, etc.-- the same tearjerking stuff, over and over and over again. That was the part that most reminded me of soap operas. Like Santa Barbara that I watched as a teenager -- there was this couple, Cruz and Eden, that got together in each episode and whined about impossibility of their happiness, on and on. Used to make me wish that someone showed up and shot them so there would be a reason to be so upset. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:51:13 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Mary-Ellen Maynard wrote: > IMHO, there is one thing to keep in mind here. According to introductions that > MZB has written to short stories in the Sword and Sorceress anthologies, she > does not consider herself a feminist. In fact, she has expressed some > hostility toward feminists and feminism as a movement. Something in the nature > of, "where were they when I needed them?" And as I wrote to her, whenever the young people ask "Where are all the....?", the answer is usually: In places with names like Sunset Acres and) It will be thejob of YOUR generation to rekindle the torch. This did not please her at all. > and "I made it without any movement, > any *good* woman writer should be able to do the same" Isn't THAT a pure Queen Bee statement?> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:33:15 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: MoA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >IMHO, there is one thing to keep in mind here. According to introductions that >MZB has written to short stories in the Sword and Sorceress anthologies, she >does not consider herself a feminist. In fact, she has expressed some >hostility toward feminists and feminism as a movement. Something in the nature >of, "where were they when I needed them?" You can find a million women in the US who'll say, "I'm definitely not a feminist. I just think I should get equal pay and equal respect and my sex life is no one else's business and I don't plan to get married until I have a good career and if I have kids we'll put them in daycare/alternate staying home/my husband will stay home because I have work to do." So...does that make all of those things not "feminist"? No. All of those women have so fully integrated certain goals of feminism that they believe them to be "normal". They make me crazy, but to some degree they are the proof of feminism's success. Likewise this book, and this author. "I made it without any movement" is a nice theory, but there ain't no one who lived in the 60s and 70s "without any movement". It was going on all around. It was filing lawsuits and marching in the towns where the publishers worked and passing laws and inspiring hundreds of thousands of women to read and write SF. There is no "without". jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:08:29 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's probably a bad sign, but my favorite character in the Mists, besides Morgaine, was her son, Mordred. I think he was the only one who was usually thinking for himself and did not let either religous dogma mess with his head. His only problem, IMHO, was the fact that he was so heavily influenced by Margause, who did not care about anyone or anything but power. I disagree that Margause was the strongest character there. The strongest, I think, was Vivian. If Vivian was not so desperate to keep her power at any cost, she might have actually kept it. After all, she kept betraying everyone who trusted her for the sake of her political goals that she saw as "universal good". I think in the end, that was what made her fail. Margause, on the other hand, did not even have any nice cover-ups for her ambitions. I was kind of glad she never got the power, it scares me to think what she would do with it. I think, my favorite part involving her was when her youngest son got slaughtered because of her conspiracy against Gwen, and all she thought was: "Oh well, he was not on my side anyway". I thought it was kind of funny, but I do not see this as strength. What I found interesting about Margause was her sexual assertiveness. Comparing with everyone else, including Morgaine, who is bouncing between "a woman can choose her lovers, it's her Goddess-given right" and "Marguuse is sleeping with everyone, what a slut!" (or all this freaking out about the threesome of Arthur, Lancelet, and Gwen) at least Margause has one certain set of rules and does not mess with her head over sex. But I guess that was the reason Bradley made her so evil at the end. Remember, at the beginning, Vivian says that "Goddess has a fourth face (besides Virgin/Mother/Wisewoman), and I hope that Margause will never wear this face". For what I understand, in the end it was implied that Margause ended up wearing that fourth face, the 4th main role of a woman, besides virgin/mother/old crone -- the whore. In fact, the approach to female sexuality was the most confusing part of the book. All those numerous references to the sacred right of women to choose a father to their children -- and at the same all those worries that the "bitch-puppy" Margause would "bring the shame on the family". I just could not get it -- did it mean that sleeping around for a priestess was a sacred duty, but for a regular teenage girl -- an ugly sin? Moreover, that story with Nemue and Kevin I found completely disgusting. I think it is better (or a least less evil) to completely deny female sexuality like Christians did, than to make it a tool for religious service or political games. Because that plan of luring Kevin-the-traitor back to Avalon using sex with a virgin made me think of the methods used by KGB and such. Pretty ugly for a "woman-friendly religion", I think. Going back to Margause, it seems to me that her loose sexuality was the main reason she was chosen for one of the very few totally "bad guys" in the book. It was as if her unrestrained interest in men from early age was supposed to prepare the reader to see her turning into a throat-slashing monster later in the book. Which I think was not only non-feminist, but pretty much mysogenistic. At least, that's what I think. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:14:13 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 7/7/98 8:52:06 PM, you wrote: << And as I wrote to her, whenever the young people ask "Where are all the....?", the answer is usually: In places with names like Sunset Acres and) It will be thejob of YOUR generation to rekindle the torch. This did not please her at all.>> The answer I always thought of in this case was; "In the same boat you were, or not born yet." Don't think that would please her either. Mary-Ellen Crystal Mist Glass Carving Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 19:44:28 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon. To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > - Why do you think this book was so popular and had so much crossover appeal? Because, whether or not it was about women in the past, present, or future, it discussed something central to every human being: Power, and how one deals with it. Either power in the form of government, power in the form of religion, power in the form of sexuality. MZB looks at how nearly mythical characters deal with the power dealt them, from those forced into their power to those who embrace it and try to ride the wave. > - Do you think the length was justified? Why or why not? After reading a long book, I tend to think back upon what I've read and ask myself two questions: 1) Was there any part that was completely unnecessary, overblown, or contained length for the sole purpose of being long? and 2) Did I feel that it was too long-winded or drawn out? I'd say no to both of these. MZB created a novel with a lot of description, but it only helped to set the scene for the exceptional characters she created. > - What did you particularly like about this book? The character portrayals, and the ending. I loved the characters, they felt /real/ after getting half-way through the book. And the ending showed what I think MZB's true purpose was -- Showing how one woman dealt with power. It wasn't a tragedy -- Morgaine realized that the power she wielded wasn't used completely for bad, and that she did all she could. A newcomer to the list, Stephanie Jackson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 23:19:23 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This was one of my favorite comments: I had one major problem with Morgaine. She alternated between blind obedience and blind rebellion, and in consequence, when careful thought and planning would have served her well, she went off like a badly made firecracker. Patricia (Pat) Mathews (By the way if this reads funny, my mailserver is having a "few" difficulties. Hope this is somewhat legible) If an author is talented and works hard she can make consistent, reasonable characters. I like those. I like consistent, reasonable people too. Unfortunately, most people aren't consistent and are frequently unresonable. Once I took a course on the Bible from a really neat, liberal intelligent priest who actually made me like the book. One of the things I like best was those foolish hebrews following Moses around in the desert and screwing up every chance they got. He'd tell them god wanted them to do something, they'd agree and they'd do it for a while then do just the opposite when they felt like it, not just once but over and over again. Now that's a human portrayal. Theoretically we learn from our mistakes, but in my experience, it takes a lot more than one to get the message. So Morgaine, Gwenhwyfar, the Merlin, Kevin, Arthur and Lancelet (who did come off as a first class wimp) could have been following Viviane around in the wilderness, making the same mistakes over and over and always thinking they had it right, but never quite getting it. So none of them got to the promised land, but they made some of us want to try to find it ourselves. Joyce Jones ÿ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?Nÿ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:24:52 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] [BDG] Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie wrote: >Is it feminist? Several people have said no, but I think maybe the definition >of "feminist", as used here, is a moving target. It's been said that it's not >feminist "enough" because it doesn't push against sexist stereotypes and >because all power in the story is gotten through men; but thirty years ago, if >someone had taken a classically male myth about men and rewritten it so that >the important people were women, I bet we would all have called it feminist. I >can't read T.H. White's series now -- I'm still fond of The Sword In The >Stone, but in the later ones Morgan le Fay appears as a really hideous >creature and I can't stand it. So my perception of a cultural icon has been >wholly changed, and it's changed what I do and what I think. Isn't that what >feminism is all about? I see this aspect of feminist "definition" mostly from the POV of youth. As a thirteen-year-old I was 'mind-blown' by seeing Suzi Quatro in her leather gear, playing bass guitar, strutting like a man on the stage etc... LOL.. I can honestly say, Suzi Q *changed my life* by challenging the passive, bland stereotype I had internalised on women singers, and by giving a young girl a 'role model' very different to most other women in the pop-world at that point in time:) At that point in time, I would have said Suzi Q represented to me the most powerful "feminist" figure:)) Not long after, at 14-15 or so, I discovered Jo Clayton's Diadem series of novels - with the introduction of Aleytys who walks and fights and struggles her way across half a planet, aged 15 and pregnant. With her maturation into an adult, and becoming a powerful immortal with very human emotions and concerns, completely 'blowing my mind away':)). It amuses me now, as it wasn't until many years later when I had read books pertaining to Goddess religions, fact and fiction, that I realised the Goddess symbolism of all four main characters - with Aleytys representing the "Mother" figure of the Goddess, and the young Shadith imprisoned in the Diadem as a young maiden, and sole survivor, of her dead, dancing, artistic culture as the "Virgin" figure, and the aged, wise and queenly Haskari as the "Crone" image. And, the mercenary male warrior figure imprisoned in the Diadem in his prime, Q, with his humour and true friendship of all the women, as an independent equal, as the 'Consort' figure to the 3-faces of the Goddess:)). All the women retained power completely independent of him, and other men, even indeed of each other - yet their bonds of friendship, and alliance of their individual strengths compensating for each other's weaknesses, during times of necessity remained strong throughout. Nonetheless, the Diadem novels, are considered not much more than well-written galactic space-opera. However, these were the FIRST powerful, strong women characters I had ever "met" in my reading, and they stay with me still. Mists of Avalon, I suspect was/is most popular with younger or less-experienced readers, the first time they had been exposed to well-drawn images of strong, powerful women of any kind, and being a departure from the general reading material available, could very well be seen as a book 'that changes lives'. Morgaine and the other women characters would stick in their minds. For older readers of Mists however, many of whom could say, "been there, done that, bought that T-shirt", the book could be perceived differently, as just a soap-opera, a best-seller pulp fiction block-buster novel, more entertaining and better-written than most perhaps, but still not great literature, feminist or otherwise. This may also account, for several readers commenting how powerfully the book affected them when first they read it, but on second reading their perception changed. As for feminist definition, perhaps its more to do with "political " feminism. For example, Margaret Thatcher (maybe, not the best example) could very well be seen as an icon of a strong, "powerful" woman, and may very well be a 'role model' and admired by many women. Yet, because of her right-wing politics, many feminists would deny her. I saw the women characters in Mists as right-wing, and because my "political feminism" leans toward the left-wing, I found it difficult to see most of the Mists women characters as anything other than right-wing men, who happened to have a different set of genitals. As for the Arthurian legends, and the history of that period, I would recommend readers take a look at Robert Graves scholarly book - "The White Goddess". A daunting book of life-long and painstaking research on Celtic, Welsh, Greek and Hebrew traditions of myth and legend, and is heavy going for any reader. Nonetheless, it is well worth the effort:)) One interesting quote: "The Norman-French troveres and Malory in his Morte d'Arthur who collected and collated their Arthurian romances had no knowledge of, or even interest in, the historical or religious meaning of the myths they handled - myths obtained from what was after all, a conquered nation, and history is written by the winners. They felt themselves entirely free to improve the narrative in accordance with their new gospel of chivalry inherited from the literary tradition of early medieval Provence - hence they broke up the old mythic patterns of Celtish lore, and taking liberties of every sort, that the Welsh minstrels in their strict oral tradition would never have dared to take." Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 05:52:04 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: [*FSFFU*] Women innn Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU The one book I read which treated Guinevere, Morgaine, and Morgause with respect, each for being what she is, is an obscure murder mystery by Phyllis Ann Karr called IDylls of the Queen. It's based on an incident in Mallory in which Guinevere is, on very flimsy evidence, accused of murder by an irate knight (literally irate: guess his nationality!). Sir Kay is the detective; Mordred is his Watson; and the mystery of who killed Sir Lamorak is cleared up, though it had to be hushed up. Mass market paperback; I've read it to shreds. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 05:55:20 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: [*FSFFU*] Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Mary-Ellen Maynard wrote: > In a message dated 7/7/98 8:52:06 PM, you wrote: > > << And as I wrote to her, whenever the young people ask "Where are > all the....?", the answer is usually: > In places with names like Sunset Acres > and) It will be thejob of YOUR generation to rekindle the torch. > > This did not please her at all.>> > > The answer I always thought of in this case was; "In the same boat you were, > or not born yet." Don't think that would please her either. Same difference. I have a friend who calls her the Wicked Witch of the West. (The Wicked Witch of the Southwest "All right, my pretty, just for that there'll be no green chili on your enchiladas!")> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:57:17 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: N Clowder Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I am about a third of the way through MOA. I read it many years ago and loved it. Thanks to those of you who have reminded me what it was like to read this book for the first time. I remember being caught up by the characters, the romance, but most of all by the depiction of a goddess-centered, woman-centered religion. I agree that it was quite a valuable achievement for MZB to bring this subject area into the mainstream. I also remember attempting to re-read the book and being unable to get through it. I feel it is too long. If MZB weren't such a good writer, it would be a disaster. It's a tribute to her that she keeps me reading when, plot-wise, there really isn't a thing going on for paragraphs on end. If you are reading for escape, if the world of this book is a place you want to stay as long as possible, then it's not too long at all. But at this stage in my life, I have a better vision of a world inhabited by strong women who worship a goddess, and MOA no longer serves me as a haven from the contemporary world. The other thing that stopped me dead in my tracks on the last attempted re-read was Gwenhwyfar. I couldn't STAND her - so much so that I put the book down. I haven't encountered her yet on this re-read, but my teeth are clenched already in anticipation. Pertaining to recent discussions on the list concerning liaisons between older men/younger women, ugly men/desirable women, I thought MZB gave a very sensitive portrayal of Igraine's relationship with Gorlois. Igraine's vacillation between loathing and gratitude seemed very realistic to me. She was trying so hard to convince herself that her lot in life was bearable, to have the "proper" feelings. Then Gorlois would do something that she couldn't overlook and her feelings of frustration and loathing would overwhelm her. I've been there. In fact, I'm often still there - except that my idea of what constitutes "proper" feeling has changed! I also thought MZB did a good job of depicting Igraine's maturity/immaturity - the responsibilities thrust upon her at an early age (she married Gorlois at 15, and is only 19 when the book opens, if I remember correctly) - contrasted with her girlish whims, desires, and, not least of all, the discovery of her sexuality as desire rather than duty. Is it a feminist book? I was toying with the definition of feminism as anything written with an awareness of the sexual politics involved. In this sense, yes. This definition sidesteps the issue of whether a book presents a desirable feminist outcome, and allows us to speak of feminists writing works that do nothing beyond depicting, accurately, situations which are expressive of the patriarchal mentality. On the other hand, recently I heard someone use the term "masculinist" with reference to literature, and I knew immediately what this meant (for me) and felt like a big hole in my vocabulary and suddenly been filled, a hole I hadn't realized was there. In this sense, feminist and masculinist would refer to literature which advances a particular agenda. It's much harder to argue for MOA as advancing a feminist agenda, though I think some of the posts on the lists have made good points in this regard. One more thing - I was astonished on this re-read that a book that is so hostile towards Christianity could have been on a best-seller list in this country. Particularly in the opening, there was some really harsh stuff. It makes me think that many of those readers who contributed to making MOA a best-seller were reading it truly as fantasy, as not-real and hence of no "real" import, and that those readers perceived the goddess-worshippers in the book (all of 'em) as the bad guys who got their due in the end. What do you think folks - is it possible to read MOA this way? It may or may not be a feminist book to those of us subscribing to a feminist list, but is it possible to read MOA and remain indifferent/unaware of the feminist issues raised? How does tying the issue of feminism to the worship of a goddess affect the message of the book, the viability of the book...dang, if I had more time, I'd figure out how to ask that question better. Enough! Thanks everyone for your posts. I'm new, and enjoying the discussion very much. Nell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 13:32:28 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: ME Hunter Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Nell wrote: >The other thing that stopped me dead in my tracks on the last attempted >re-read was Gwenhwyfar. I couldn't STAND her - so much so that I put the >book down. I haven't encountered her yet on this re-read, but my teeth are >clenched already in anticipation. Amen! I have *never* found a portrayal of the Guinevere character that I liked. This once made her more human, provided some motivations for her behavior, at least, but she remains completely unlikeable to me. There were so many easy solutions, if only she hadn't been so busy finding excuses and wallowing in misery and self-pity. Ugh. I've always seen her as the "bad guy" in the Arthurian legends. I really love MOA. Sure it has flaws, but I love the rich detail and somehow even the lovelorn moaning has a weight and poetry it generally lacks in the soap operas people have compared it to. The one "problem" I really have with the book is that having read it, I find it impossible to get through other versions of the Arthurian legends (do NOT get me started on Lawhead!) because they so lack the character development of MOA that I find myself thinking "but that's not how it happened!" (I'm fully aware MOA is not "how it happened" either, but it just seems so plausible to me in many ways that other versions never achieve.) Have other people read the companion volumes _The Forest House_ and _Lady of the Lake_? I was really disappointed in them and found them dreadfully simplistic in comparison. E. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:07:09 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 7/8/98 6:20:13 PM, E wrote: <> Only one I've ever liked was Vanessa Redgrave's performance in Camelot... phoebe Phoebe Wray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 16:27:48 -0400 Reply-To: anneh@eecs.mit.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anne Hunter Subject: [*FSFFU*] Delurking to talk about Gwynhwyfar and Morgaine To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I've been lurking for several months since my youngest sister recommended I join this list. She's been on it for some time, I believe. First, my comments: Does it seem to others that MZB intended to portray Gwynhwyfar as suffering from a panic disorder including agoraphobia? I have friends who've suffered from anxiety attacks, and it sounds like that's what Gwyn has. She recalls at one point that as a child she enjoyed playing outside, when she was taken to visit the ruins at Camelot, but knows that now she would just panic. It seems as if the problem may have started from her time at the convent, and perhaps even from the incident when she met Lancelot and Morgaine, or else from the sense of guilt that the priests instilled. So she's not just a pale "girly girl", all prim and pious -- she's a deeply troubled person. I'm not sure why MZB chose to show her this way. I haven't quite finished rereading the book, so perhaps this is made more of later. But it seemed odd that we were mentioning her personality without acknowledging what seems to me to be her most notable characteristic. On Igraine, whose characterization I otherwise enjoyed, I couldn't understand her reported conversion to Christianity when she married Uther, whom we were told was not strongly on the Christian side. It seemed that the Goddess religion had brought her happiness, but then she turned away from it. In her deathscene she recanted a bit, I think. Second, about me: I've been reading science fiction since I was a child, and I've been a feminist since my teens, when the second wave started. I read all kinds of science fiction, and most of my favorite writers are women. I'm not generally wild about fantasy, as there seems to be an amazing amount of derivative, imitative stuff out there. It's not at all unrelated to my love of SF that I majored in philosophy and history in college. I don't know if I would have majored in Women's Studies if it had existed, but I'm sure I would have taken classes. I'm a p.k. (preacher's kid) of the rebellious, atheistic type, nevertheless obsessed with religions. I'm a zenophiliac; attracted to, not afraid of, the exotic and different. The only spark of spirituality I retain is a deep appreciation for nature. In a lot of parallel universes I'm a writer, but in this one I work at MIT, where I run our largest academic programs, the undergrad and combined bachelors/masters programs in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. This involves too much paper and database work, but is mostly email, and counseling students, of whom I have roughly 1,375, and almost 100 faculty advisors. Although I'm happy to have a job that uses my heart as much as my head, I do get 'way peopled out, and find email a relatively tranquil alternative. Apart from being a workaholic, I swim every day, love to travel, enjoy renting foreign and indie movies, and love food far too much. For over 20 years I've been happily in a relationship with a wonderful gentle man, with whom I live in our luxury condo on the Charles. If I believed in previous lives I'd think I'd done something pretty wonderful in my last one. I try not to be smug or scared that I'll have to pay for it all later. Anne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:22:21 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's strange how the same scene can effect people so differently. The seduction and capture of Kevin by Nimue is one of my favorite stories in the book. Any author could have written of the ease with which a beautiful woman could seduce an ugly man and then betray him. But Bradley showed the power of sex by having the seduction work as well on Nimue as on Kevin. Sex as a fundamental expression of nature is shown to be very strong, even holy in this book producing a great tie between the partners. This is why a positive view of sexuality is a part of goddess honoring spirituality. Contrast that idea with the expression of sex in the movie Kids in which intercourse involves as much emotion as washing your face. The spirituality of sex is one of the major factors making it a strong human drive. Joyce Jones ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?Nÿ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:41:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA -- Kevin and Nimue To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU You might be right, Joyce, but I still think the idea of sacrificing a 14-year-old girl's sexuality -- and in fact her life -- for the sake of some political revenge (and after all that talk how more humane and non-violent was Avalon comparing to Christianity) was extremely disgusting. I just imagined myself in Nimue's place, and I can say that I'd have a few choice words for Morgaine or anyone else who'd order me to do this for the sake of some "higher goal". This was what I did not like about the Avalon the way it's portrayed in this book the most. It bothered me that its priestesses -- both Vivian and Morgaine -- seemed to care very little about anyone's lives or feelings. Power is a very nice thing, but the price one os willing to pay for it should have some limits. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that the rulers of Avalon brought their fall on themselves. Which was probably better for everyone, anyway. I would hate to see that people who treat others like worthless pawns would prevail. Maybe the main thing that grosses me out about Nimue-Kevin affair is that once again, there is a beautiful young girl throwing her life away for some ugly old traitor, and moreover, she does it by the order of _other women_. And that it's presented as something heroic. This might be a stretch, but I also felt that the main reason Morgaine send Nimue to do this was to get rid of her only possible rival for the throne of High Priestess. The same as Vivian much earlier in the book was wondering whether she had thrown Igraine into the marriage to Gorlois siply to send away her little sister who was a lot prettier that she was (I'm not making this up -- it's in the book). Margause was prettier too, besides Vivian could not control her, so out she went as well. The same as Vivian later put Morgaine to bed with her brother, without telling either of them and knowing perfectly well that something like that can make anyone's head cave in, Christian or not. The later "explanation" that Morgaine was intended to be the "behind-the-throne-counsel" to Arthur because they had sex seems kind of cheesy to me. Because back when it happened, Vivian did not even want either of them to know who they slept with, they only discovered it by accident. So how their affair would make some kind of a "sacred tie" between them if they would not even know who they slept with? I think, Vivian simply wanted to destroy Morgaine and royally mess up Arthur's head in the prosess, so she could totally control them. The first part of the plan worked pretty well, but it hardly did any good to anyone. Sometimes, it seemed that women in this book were just as hateful to each other as they are in the most traditional novels. And just like in those stories about "hateful old women", they seem to have a particular knack on destroying the ones who depends on them... I think it's sad that the strong female characters in the book were expressing their strength like this. No matter what anyone says, I don't think that sacrificing the ones who love you makes one a strong woman. It just makes one an asshole, regardless of gender, IMHO. In regards to the Goddess honoring spirituality through sex, it seems to me that Avalon traditions did not go that far from the patriarchial point of view. There are many places in the novel when Vivian condemns Margause's "promiscuity" by pointing out, that she, Vivane, only had sex when she had to -- for a "sacred marriage", or by a Beltane fire, or to secure a political alliance. She did not go around sleeping with people she liked, like Margause did, just for fun. So basically, it was the same old idea of "as long as you don't enjoy it, it's not a sin". How was it better than the Christian obsession with marriage? It simply means instead of sleeping with one person you do not choose, you have to do it with many that you may not even like. Just another variation of "sex as a social duty", IMHO. I think it's better when sex is like washing one's face than when it becomes some kind of currency for a higher cause, which ruins you life on the top of that. But that's just my opinion. Marina On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > It's strange how the same scene can effect people so differently. The > seduction and capture of Kevin by Nimue is one of my favorite stories in > the book. Any author could have written of the ease with which a > beautiful woman could seduce an ugly man and then betray him. But Bradley > showed the power of sex by having the seduction work as well on Nimue as on > Kevin. Sex as a fundamental expression of nature is shown to be very > strong, even holy in this book producing a great tie between the partners. > This is why a positive view of sexuality is a part of goddess honoring > spirituality. Contrast that idea with the expression of sex in the movie > Kids in which intercourse involves as much emotion as washing your face. > The spirituality of sex is one of the major factors making it a strong > human drive. > > Joyce Jones http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:49:22 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA -- Gwen and ugly men To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >I have *never* found a portrayal of the Guinevere character that I >liked. Jane Yolen has a collection of short stories entitled _Merlin's Booke_, about what you'd expect, featuring a Guenevere who dresses as a boy, comes to court to challenge the man who dishonored her sister, and tricks the sword out of the stone and sticks a different one in before Arthur gets to it. Ugly men getting the beautiful woman -- there is a difference between an author saying to herself, "Hmm, how can I make this basically feminist novel also appeal to non-feminist men, oh, I'll give the girl to this ugly guy"; and looking at a book and saying, "Hey, non-feminist men might read this novel and get into it enough that they start to think about the feminist issues too." In the same way that Kmfriello said that her objection wasn't to Lucien's character in particular, it seems a misrepresentation to take Catherine's statement as simply promoting a sop to men's pride. Your mileage may vary. Kmfriello said that she doesn't care whether men read feminist SF or, if I extrapolate correctly, get into feminism at all. But I went to a heavily male school and now work in a field that is overwhelmingly male, and I can't possibly afford to reject all the non-feminists around me. There wouldn't be enough people left. Given that, I'd rather make an effort to convert 'em. Nor does that have to mean compromising my feminism. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:28:30 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA - misc. To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It is the second time I read _Mists of Avalon_ and contrary to the first time when I've read the book through in a few days, this time every time I stop it takes some days till I go back to it because it is really sad and tragic and I know how it ends. I am only at Arthur's wedding at the moment. I agree with many of the posts so far. Especially with Marina's assessment on sex and sexual assertiveness of women in the book. On 8 Jul 98 Anne Hunter wrote: > Does it seem to others that MZB intended to portray Gwynhwyfar as > suffering from a panic disorder including agoraphobia? ... I'm not > sure why MZB chose to show her this way. I wondered too. > On Igraine, whose characterization I otherwise enjoyed, I couldn't > understand her reported conversion to Christianity when she married > Uther, whom we were told was not strongly on the Christian side. It > seemed that the Goddess religion had brought her happiness, but then > she turned away from it. That left me completely baffled the first and the second time I came to that point in the book. For me that switch is completely unmotivated. From what happened to Igraine before I expected that Igraine develops her abilities further. There was some discussion on it that there are several parts in the book which can be criticised from a feminist perspective. Julieanne listed several relevant points: > For a start all the women > characters can only achieve power through men. They use mostly > traditional feminine ways of trying to achieve power: their > sexuality and/or emotional manipulation. ... Morgaine ... needs Accolon > to fight for Avalon - Damsel in Distress? etc. What I missed was a description of the everyday life in a household of the goddess believers. The different concepts would have an impact on that (or the different concepts would be the result of it). Lot is described as an old believer (if for opportunistic reasons), as far as I remember Morgaine's husband more or less too, but still the only picture presented is that of the man as provider, defender and decision-maker, the woman as the chatelaine. The only everyday life aspect of the goddess religion mentioned is the Beltane festival. Perhaps the idea is that everything is already changed by the influence of the Christian religion but still there should be a remainder of the ways before. Or the priestesses should note that they have lost already. Or have I forgotten or overlooked something? On 7 Jul 98 Julieanne wrote: > - historical innaccuracies, some of which are glaring, I find to be > a minor criticism of Mists. Uh, I always thought the legend about Arthur is more or less a myth, that there was no historical Arthur. I hardly know the British history before 1066 (and only the highlights after that). I am curious: Was there really a king called Arthur? And what are the historical inaccuracies (the more important ones)? On 6 Jul 98 Kathleen M. Friello wrote: > I've been scraping together references for hardcopy reviews and > critical writings, but this takes a little longer. I have found that > MOA made a great impression on German readers, and has inspired at > least one critical book in that language. I know that MOA has been widely read in Germany (at least all my (female) friends have). It was one of the books one hands to a friend with the recommendation to READ it. But is that different to other European countries besides the UK? Or even different to the UK and North America? Petra P.S.: In case somebody noticed, I have a new email address as I have changed to a new job. I live part time in Kassel now (the city of the Documenta, however, the next one is only in 2002). *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:12:54 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA - misc. To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > On 7 Jul 98 Julieanne wrote: > > - historical innaccuracies, some of which are glaring, I find to be > > a minor criticism of Mists. > > Uh, I always thought the legend about Arthur is more or less a myth, > that there was no historical Arthur. I hardly know the British > history before 1066 (and only the highlights after that). I am > curious: Was there really a king called Arthur? And what are the > historical inaccuracies (the more important ones)? The main ones I saw, was mostly juxtaposing historical events/characters in one lifetime ( ie. several decades in the book), for events which actually occurred over a period of centuries. For example, a Bishop that is a contemporary of Saint Patrick, the invasions of the "Saxons," in Britain and the invasion of Spain by the Islamic Moors. As for Arthur's existence, at that point in time, most of the British Isles were a relatively loose conglomeration of peoples. There had been several waves of invasion by various European peoples - including Danaanites, who gave the name to both Denmark and Dublin in Ireland - variously colonised/conquered different parts. The least invaded/conquered were the northern Pictish/Scottish peoples and the Welsh. There is evidence that several Kings/Princes, named Arthur existed. It is known, that it was common practice for centuries to rename kings/princes etc after the local variant of the 'God', after they had become King - some of the more common names were Bran in southern Britain, Ardur ( Arrdu, Artuu, Artrut - other spellings) in Scotland, and in Welsh, Vron. Gwion is another common one, probably Irish. Much as many Roman Emperors were often called Caesar. As for the Tale of King Arthur as most people recognise it, its based on the Malory's Mort d'Arthur, which according to most scholars is a mythical/legendary or "fantasy" story that may have been embellished from earlier tales told by the Druidic priests and minstrels. How much is true, or even how much was based on the original Druid tales, and how much Malory invented for the sake of a good story, will probably never be known. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:34:11 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robert Barrett Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA - misc. To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sic scribit Julieanne: > were often called Caesar. As for the Tale of King Arthur as most people > recognise it, its based on the Malory's Mort d'Arthur, which according to > most scholars is a mythical/legendary or "fantasy" story that may have > been embellished from earlier tales told by the Druidic priests and > minstrels. How much is true, or even how much was based on the original > Druid tales, and how much Malory invented for the sake of a good story, > will probably never be known. Actually, Malory's direct translations and original inventions are very well known; look at the work of Eugune Vinaver and other Arthurian scholars. In addition, "Druid tales" have little or nothing to do with the Arthurian tales, at least in any sense we can recover. The historical Arthur is mostly wishful thinking (with a little history of post-Roman Britain thrown in); the literary Arthur is the joint creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chretien de Troyes in the 1150s-1170s. Geoffrey and Chretien were working off of older legends and folk sources, but it's rare for such material to survive due to its oral nature. The Welsh Mabinogion is probably the closest we'll ever get to such tales ("Culhwch and Olwen" has been called a ninth or tenth century story), but even that text exists only in late medieval manuscripts. Ob *Mists of Avalon*. Not my favorite Arthurian re-vision, but it definitely seems to have been a powerful text for young women readers, particularly teenagers. When I teach my Arthurian Lit. class, I almost always have at least one woman in the room who's read it and loves it. I myself find it to be a text that introduces (or makes popular) a number of new tropes in the Arthurian tradition: the pagan/Christian conflict and retelling the Matter of Britain from a woman's perspective being the two most important. I do admit to finding Bradley's portrait of Guenevere disturbing and a bit offensive, esp. in the scene in which Arthur and Lancelot bed her together and end up using her as a conduit for their own unrealized passions for each other. That one had me reaching for my copy of Gayle Rubin's "Traffic in Women." I have an ambiguous relation to Bradley. In putting together my women's sf course, I considered using some of her work, but decided against it in part after reading several of her bitter arguments against feminist women writers in the sf field (the main reason for excluding her was the limited schedule and the presence of a good many authors I prefer: Moore, Le Guin, Murphy, Shelley, Russ, Wilhelm, Tiptree/Sheldon, Moffett, Tuttle, Dorman Hess, Emshwiller, Scott, Cadigan, and Dorsey). Ob women and Arthur: I would like to recommend what I think is a more interesting text on gender issues and women's role in a quasi-Arthurian setting, Heldris of Cornwall's *Roman de Silence* (ca. 1275). It's available in a good English translation, and I really got a kick out of teaching it. Silence is a young woman trained as a boy/squire in order to keep the family lands (the king has ordered that no women shall inherit); she grows up to be the mightiest knight in the land, gets caught up in cross-dressing intrique at the King's court (the King has these "feelings" about his young protege, and the Queen attempts to seduce the "lad" behind his back), goes out on a quest to find Merlin, and is finally revealed to be a woman (the Queen has become evil at this point, dies, and Silence takes her place). The ending is more ambiguous than it sounds in this summary; Heldris is noticeably evasive about whether this is a happy ending for his/her (we're not sure who Heldris was) hero, and the allegorical personifications of Nature and Nurture (yes!) have held a running argument about gender roles throughout the romance. And then there's Chretien's *Erec and Enide* . . . but that's a romance for another day. Best, Rob Barrett -- Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-mail: rbarrett@dept.english.upenn.edu * World Wide Web: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/index.html * Garden shrugged. "I see no reason to give the Heroes priority. The world is a One Twist Ring: we affect the Mist, the Mist affects the real world. Stories from one get told in the other." - Sean Stewart, _Clouds End_ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 17:51:00 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Anne said: >Does it seem to others that MZB intended to portray Gwynhwyfar as >suffering from a panic disorder including agoraphobia? I have friends >who've suffered from anxiety attacks, and it sounds like that's what >Gwyn has. She recalls at one point that as a child she enjoyed >playing outside, when she was taken to visit the ruins at Camelot, but >knows that now she would just panic. It seems as if the problem may >have started from her time at the convent, and perhaps even from the >incident when she met Lancelot and Morgaine, or else from the sense of >guilt that the priests instilled. So she's not just a pale "girly >girl", all prim and pious -- she's a deeply troubled person. Yes! I didn't notice it years ago when I read MOA the first time, but this time it was crystal clear to me from the beginning. >I'm not sure why MZB chose to show her this way. Like you, I'm not sure either. I kept looking for some kind of 'pay-off', some reason tied to the original legend, or perhaps some kind of experience after which Gwen. finds herself 'cured' and therefore able to make a more positive contribution to events, but none of that seemed to materialise. Comments, anyone? I have to admit I was not looking forward to re-reading this book. The first time I read it, back when it came out, I was really anticipating enjoying its female viewpoint on my favourite legend. But I found myself left at the end with a very depressing, negative feeling. The women were depressingly manipulative and flawed, and the attitude towards men seemed overwhelmingly negative. I'd never read the Darkover novels and the one time I went to an SF convention where MZB was one of the guests, I had a rather negative experience with her in a discussion group. So no, I was not looking forward to this book. Thank goodness I was pleasantly surprised for the most part, even though I did get somewhat impatient with _some_ of the long-winded description. Although I will never like MZB's Gwynhwyfar, I do like her complex characters and the tolerant attitude towards religious diversity that Merlyn and the older characters kept reminding others of (even though so few listened). I have enjoyed reading all of the thoughtful posts others have written. I recognise my own thoughts in some of them, but as usual, I got too caught up in the story to analyse it well afterwards. :) The one thing that kept popping into my head all through the book was that there seemed to be all sorts of personal (authorial) issues woven into the characters and story, which made me curious about MZB's own life and what led her to re-write this legend the way she did. I suppose this means I should take a look at the bibliography posted previously (sigh). Does anyone have any insights? Monica ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:14:05 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kendra Smith Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA - misc. To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Uh, I always thought the legend about Arthur is more or less a myth, > that there was no historical Arthur. I hardly know the British > history before 1066 (and only the highlights after that). I am > curious: Was there really a king called Arthur? And what are the > historical inaccuracies (the more important ones)? I am a Medieval Studies major, and if my memory serves me correctly, the Arthurian cycle began as a body of stories told orally by the Britons which were centered around the legendary King who fought valiantly against the Anglo-Saxon invaders. These stories became associated with and co-opted by other peoples in Britian and eventually the name Arthur became associated with the King. Hence, these cycles of tales were widely known and circulated when Chretien de Troyes and (later) Malory wrote their poetic compilations. Maybe this will help, and again: I am going from sketchy memory. I need to go back and read my texts on the actual historocity of these tales. Kendra O'Neal Smith echo1@imap3.asu.edu tristesse7@aol.com http://members.aol.com/tristesse7/dystopia/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:36:00 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA - Igraine and Gwen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, Petra Mayerhofer wrote: > On 8 Jul 98 Anne Hunter wrote: > > Does it seem to others that MZB intended to portray Gwynhwyfar as > > suffering from a panic disorder including agoraphobia? ... I'm not > > sure why MZB chose to show her this way. > > I wondered too. My impression was that Gwynhwyfar (by the way, how do you pronounce that? It spells worse than my last name) was meant as the weakest and most "feminine" female character of the book, who in the "men's world" turns out to be the only one who always got things her way. Think about it: she is basically responsible for Arthur's betrayal of Avalon, when she made him abandon Pendgaron's banner, do the penance, make Britain "an all-Christian country" and all that stuff. Just by whining and cajoling, she made more changes in government policies than Vivian, Morgaine, and the rest of the Avalon gang with all their intrigues combined. I think that her agarophobia was meant to indicate her general emotional disturbance and irrationality. Basically, she seems to be an example of the classic "neurotic dumb blonde". It's a very commonly used stereotype, even though I'm not sure why it was necessary in this book. To show that stupid women are the ones who create the most damage, more than the consciously evil ones? > > On Igraine, whose characterization I otherwise enjoyed, I couldn't > > understand her reported conversion to Christianity when she married > > Uther, whom we were told was not strongly on the Christian side. It > > seemed that the Goddess religion had brought her happiness, but then > > she turned away from it. > > That left me completely baffled the first and the second time I came > to that point in the book. For me that switch is completely > unmotivated. From what happened to Igraine before I expected that > Igraine develops her abilities further. I think Igraine was very ambivalent about her Avalon connection. She seemed to deeply resent being sent away from Avalon and thrust into an unhappy marriage. She felt betrayed not just by her sister, but by the Avalon itself. She seem vulnerable to the Christian propaganda she got from her husband, she broke the rules of Avalon in order to save Uther's life in his battle with Gorlois, in doing that, she also betrayed her husband, which she did not feel comfortable with, etc., etc. All these things seemed to make her feel so much guilt and shame that renouncing Avalon was simply a way to forget about all that. "Getting saved" gave her the peace of mind she could not have with Avalon because of all she had to endure for its sake, mostly against her will. I do not think she really changed her beliefs. She simply decided to get them all out of her head and just be happy for once. At least that's what I think. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:56:50 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Russell Williams Subject: [*FSFFU*] Arthurian Tales To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi again, For those that are interested in Merlin and another aspect of the celtic traditions I would suggest an Australian writer: Traci Harding. Her first novel was wonderfully written it encompassed Merlin and some of his history the title - The Ancient Future, The Dark Age. Publisher: Harpercollins. Some of her references include: Taliesin: Shamanism and the Bardic Mysteries in Britain and Ireland by John Matthews - The Aquarian Press, HarpercollinsPublishers, London And: Practical Celtic Magic by Murray Hope once again published by HarpercollinsPublishers. For those that would like to know more about the era or Merlin and the history I would strongly recommend these books. Blessed Be, Karen c/- russwill@alphalink.com.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:40:20 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Now that I have a working mailserver, let me post a few more thoughts about Mists of Avalon. For the longest time I didn't understand the meaning of the great marriage to the land. It wasn't until the Nimue-Kevin story that it became clear. Sex is so powerful in the goddess based religion that it should always invoke a bond. Many of the priestesses didn't have a bond with the father of their children because their children were conceived in marriages to the land, so the bond was with the land. Had the lady's religion not been under such strong attack, Nimue's first sexual experience would have been the same as many girls her age at the Beltane celebrations. The male involved would have been of minor import, whether or not she conceived a child would have been of a little more import, but her spirituality would have been strengthened, and she would have shared in the community of her sisters who had had similar experiences. Instead, she was kept secreted just for the purpose of "tricking" Kevin. She was not prepared psychologically for the power of the experience. Had Morgaine or Raven thought about Nimue personally, they wouldn't have sent her to her duty so unprepared, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Not that this was right, but they were facing the end of their world. And 14 year old girls were of an acceptable marriageable, childbearing age. This was a different culture after all. Morgause's sexual promiscuity was frowned upon because it involved no bond with the land or even with the men she chose, no bond at all. It was a plaything, and the religion did not see sex as a plaything. I don't find that attitude oppressive, I find it liberating to know we each possess this power. The freedom to treat great spiritual truths lightly doesn't seem to me to be much of a freedom. Rather it robs the person of the potential for growth, and what else is life for? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:53:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, personality problems To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I can see that some on this list have a lower regard for Mists than they had intended because they have had personal disagreements with MZB. From what has been posted she appears to have that Queen Bee thing going on, and that very unfortunate handicap of denying her feminism while she reaps the rewards of it. Alas, still a problem of some successful females. I think I'll just forgo looking into her biography. I very much like her book, it has obviously had a great deal of impact on many girl, women and even male readers, so her personal shortcomings don't interest me. How I used to love to listen to the sensitive emotional quality of Willie Nelson songs before I knew he physically abused women. How I loved Dickens before I read how he emotionally abused his wife. How I could be moved by a Frank Sinatra song before I knew he abused anyone he wanted. If MZB doesn't abuse her mate or her children I'm willing to let her other personal failings be her own problem. I even have a few personal failings of my own, but I try to be a contributing member of society anyway. I hope, in my role as labor and delivery nurse, I haven't caused anyone to have a horrible birth experience because I lust after James Spader in my heart. Joyce Jones ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:56:37 -0700 Reply-To: Sandy.Candioglos@intel.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sandy Candioglos Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Arthurian legend may be deeply entrenched in US culture, but I had no real knowledge of the story or the characters involved before I read MOA, and the book frankly left me a little overwhelmed. I really LIKED it, but since I had no framework to hang it on, I had trouble holding onto who was doing what. Just a couple months after I read it the first time, I couldn't remember how it ended, or even that Nimue was in the book. As I re-read, I remembered, and I've retained more of what happened this time, but I think I'd have to read it a couple more times to get some of the subtleties. This discussion is helping with that. Thanks! :) As an aside, I thought I'd read "the once and future king", just to have another perspective on the story. I haven't been able to get past the first 50 pages or so (and those were tortuous). Anybody have suggestions of books I might be able to stomach? I've looked for Mary Stewart at Powell's, and haven't found her - is that because I'm looking in the SF/F section? Would she be somewhere else? Thanks! -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah [mailto:jss@PA.DEC.COM] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 10:49 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists I agree with what a lot of people have said about MoA being a tragedy; but what's interesting about this to me is that I didn't see it that way the first time I read it. I found it exciting and inspiring: all these women running around and doing stuff, right there in the middle of a legend I'd read or seen or heard about dozens of times. The Arthurian legends are so deeply entrenched in our culture (and here I mean the US, so I imagine it's even more so in Britain), and I was so into them at the time I first read this book, that it seemed like a whole second cast had just showed up on the stage of a play I knew very well. But this time, it was a cast of people like me. I loved that. Also the depiction of Avalon's religion fascinated me, and I think I just ignored the fact that every main character lost in the end. I don't even remember the last hundred and fifty pages; maybe I didn't read them. I'm curious as to whether people find it less ddepressing the first time the read it, or if it's just that I was too young (thirteen or so) to be paying a lot of attention. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:41:52 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 02:40 PM 7/14/98 -0700, Joyce Jones wrote: >Morgause's sexual promiscuity was frowned upon because it involved no bond >with the land or even with the men she chose, no bond at all. It was a >plaything, and the religion did not see sex as a plaything. I don't find >that attitude oppressive, I find it liberating to know we each possess this >power. The freedom to treat great spiritual truths lightly doesn't seem to >me to be much of a freedom. Rather it robs the person of the potential for >growth, and what else is life for? This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual truth. A lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should they have to? Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have much of an inherent meaning -- the meaning is in what the participants bring to it. If an individual's viewpoint is that sex is about transient physical pleasure and no more, why not leave that person be as long as they inflict no harm upon others? The Avalon take on sexuality seems hardly better than the Christian to me -- the decisionmaking is still up to "the authorities" instead of the individual and pleasure is deferred in favor of duty. There are more than these two ways to live, thank Peep. * Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to Faith and the Muse: Elyria "...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: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:02:58 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >>>Morgause's sexual promiscuity was frowned upon because it involved no bond >>>It was a plaything, and the religion did not see sex as a plaything. --------------------- >>This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual truth. A >>lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should they have to? >>Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have much of an inherent >>meaning -- the meaning is in what the participants bring to it. If an >>individual's viewpoint is that sex is about transient physical pleasure and >>no more, why not leave that person be as long as they inflict no harm upon >>others? . There are more than these two ways to live, thank Peep. >>* Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god >Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT My point is that to the ladies of Avalon sexual activity, as many areas of life, did have an inherent meaning. Discipline was very important to them. They ate sparingly, they drank only of sacred water, Raven even gave up her voice in order to advance spiritually. You might think spiritual progression unimportant, but those on Avalon did not worship Peep. They worshipped a goddess who was made manifest in nature, and they used the things of nature to honor her. Since our sexual self could be called our most natural self, this is what they used in their worship. Unlike the Christians the woman's body was not owned by her husband, she shared it with whoever she chose, but she did not choose lightly. They seemed to have had no use for transient physical pleasure. They didn't "forbid" Morgause from her sexual pursuits. By choosing to follow a spiritually meaningless life she willingly withdrew from the power of the goddess honoring spirituality. Joyce Jones ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:18:32 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists Comments: To: Sandy Candioglos To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Sandy Candioglos wrote: > As an aside, I thought I'd read "the once and future king", just to have > another perspective on the story. I haven't been able to get past the first > 50 pages or so (and those were tortuous). Anybody have suggestions of books > I might be able to stomach? I've looked for Mary Stewart at Powell's, and > haven't found her - is that because I'm looking in the SF/F section? Would > she be somewhere else? Rosemary Sutcliff, THE SWORD AT SUNSET or anything else of hers set in that period (ask around - and some of them will be filed in the YA section). Parke Godwin, BELOVED EXILE (for Guinevere), FIRELORD (for Arthur) and THE LAST RAINBOW (if you can stand analogs to Native American history without tears of frustrated, helpless rage.). Phyllis Ann Karr, IDYLLS OF THE QUEEN. Murder mystery out of Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, with Sir Kay as the detective and Mordred (not yet a Bad Guy) as his sidekick; shows the decision Mordred made that led him to becomeing a Bad Guy.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:23:36 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual truth. A > lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should they have to? > Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have much of an inherent > meaning -- the meaning is in what the participants bring to it. If an > individual's viewpoint is that sex is about transient physical pleasure and > no more, why not leave that person be as long as they inflict no harm upon > others? The Avalon take on sexuality seems hardly better than the Christian > to me -- the decisionmaking is still up to "the authorities" instead of the > individual and pleasure is deferred in favor of duty. There are more than > these two ways to live, thank Peep. > > * Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god But it's Marion's universe and once in in, you play by Marion's rules. Sex as a sacred bonding is a huge advance over the attitudes of the period she and I grew up in. Sex for casual pleasure is post-Pill and still to us elders carries overtones of paradise for men, a jungle full of traps & pitfalls for women. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:36:30 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >>They worshipped a goddess who was made manifest in nature, and they used the things of nature to honor her. This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. Debra Euler DAW Books ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 07:53:02 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a >> person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, >> Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a >> book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. > >As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. So, one >answer might be Wicca, but I do not know whether you could call a men >that nor whether the term is restricted to their priestesses (if >any) or applied to all followers. And there are probably other >Goddess-worshippers around, so the term is not comprehensive in any >case. Certainly "Wiccan" applies both to men and to "layfolk" though most of the pagans I know hold to the idea that there are no layfolk (the role of "priest" or "priestess" rotates, or is traded off, or is decided based on who's tired and who's shy). "Pagan" is a pretty good bet for what today's goddess-worshipping practitioners call themselves, although literally the word covers a much wider spectrum. You might try looking in the alternative religion or spirituality (or, sometimes, women's studies) sections of your local bookstore for books on the topic. That can give you a wider range of names, as well as letting you know if you're writing something inaccurate (not that you can't, just that you should know). jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:05:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Richard Holmes Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hello, I've been lurking for a few weeks, reading the various insightful posts about "Mists of Avalon" and others - it is refreshing to see a lot of the diverse interpretations / attitudes here. I've always heard MoA held up as a great feminist novel which inspired many to go to Goddess worship / women's spirituality / Wicca / etc. I must say that when I read it for the first time a couple of years ago I too was appalled that the women on Avalon had so many of what I saw as patriarchal / hierarchical / power-over attitudes, and that the view of the universe was very fatalistic and inflexible. I did find the novel engaging, and very sad. It left me with many questions, as well. I was wondering what the significance of having Arthur fight the stag was - seemed like a male dominance ritual too much - "can he out-stag the stag?" kind of thing. Just wanted to make a comment on the following as well. Petra Mayerhofer writes: > On 15 Jul 98 Debra Euler wrote: > > This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a > > person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, > > Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a > > book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. > > As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. So, one > answer might be Wicca, but I do not know whether you could call a men > that nor whether the term is restricted to their priestesses (if > any) or applied to all followers. And there are probably other > Goddess-worshippers around, so the term is not comprehensive in any > case. As far as I can tell, "Goddess-worshipper" is best; it is relatively short (as opposed to something like "ecclectic, neo-pagan, eco-feminist goddess-worshipper"). Today, many people will see "goddess-worshiper" as associated with feminist spirituality and /or Wicca (at least in USA and probably parts of Europe - other people in other countries may wish to correct me here); you can probably clarify any fine points in the rest of the novel. Since many cultures had goddesses but weren't necessarily feminist, much needs to be supported with context anyway before people know what you "really" mean by the term. This whole note has been slanted towards the assumption that you *do* mean a modern feminist goddess-worshipper type or someone similar - if not then perhaps a devotee to a particular Goddess might be called after that Goddess, or a made-up name based on the attribute of this Goddess. For instance, priestesses of certain Goddesses were sometimes named after the Goddess with the same name, or some attribute associated with the Goddess or Her mythology. As far as Bradley basing this on the Wicca cult, it does seem that it pulls in some of the mythology of Wicca, and blends it in with various older mythological themes. Not being Wiccan, though, I wouldn't be able to address the fine points. Thanks for the wonderful discussions thus far ... -Richard. @ \@/ Richard A. Holmes (rholmes@cs.stanford.edu) @ | @ \|/ "O dark expansive sea of night, @ | Tapestry of stars and solitude, @ , , | , , Crashing waves of chaos, Deep void of becoming, @ ' ' ' ' ' Radiant blackness, all-enfolding, @ Constant well of creation, @ Bestow you dark gifts and silver sparks @ On your parched and thirsty child. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:56:18 0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On 15 Jul 98 Debra Euler wrote: > This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a > person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, > Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a > book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. So, one answer might be Wicca, but I do not know whether you could call a men that nor whether the term is restricted to their priestesses (if any) or applied to all followers. And there are probably other Goddess-worshippers around, so the term is not comprehensive in any case. Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:30:09 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "M.J.Norman" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Could I add to Pat's list the 4 books by Jack Whyte, called collectively the Camulod Chronicles; THE SKYSTONE, THE SINGING SWORD, THE EAGLES' BROOD and THE SAXON SHORE. He has a Roman take on the Arthur legend and the women of Camulod are considered to have equal rights with the men, until the bishops' debate at St. Albans. I love reading variations on the Arthur legend and these are refreshingly different. Monica > Rosemary Sutcliff, THE SWORD AT SUNSET or anything else of hers >set in that period (ask around - and some of them will be filed in the YA >section). > Parke Godwin, BELOVED EXILE (for Guinevere), FIRELORD (for >Arthur) and THE LAST RAINBOW (if you can stand analogs to Native American >history without tears of frustrated, helpless rage.). > Phyllis Ann Karr, IDYLLS OF THE QUEEN. Murder mystery out of >Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, with Sir Kay as the detective and Mordred (not >yet a Bad Guy) as his sidekick; shows the decision Mordred made that led >him to becomeing a Bad Guy.> > >Patricia (Pat) Mathews >mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:16:14 -0600 (MDT) Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > our 'sex-life' isn't satisfactory. The great "Holy Orgasm" has become quite a > spiritual icon of the late 20th Century. I had a therapist who kept pushing that on me - a divorced woman well past 45. I tried. I really tried. The harder I tried the more my sex drive dried up. But I find I lead a full, rich life without one. Maybe I'm like the deaf person who can't appreciate Beethoven and Mozart; but there's plenty else out there to enjoy. > For example, look at the recent sales > figures for the impotence treatment drug Viagra. The message is quite blatant - > you can't have a "full life" without a "full sex-life". Commercialising > sexuality into an idealised form of spiritual narcissism, is also a very > effective mechanism for preventing people from 'bonding' in large numbers. But, boy, does it sell Viagra. And cigarettes. And cars. And perfume. This isn't about sex; it's about $$$$$. > interests. Another form of the classic Divide-and-Conquer tactic. People who > think of sexuality as just like anything else, and just a pleasant form of > transient pleasure, are paying "homage" or "honour" to the "higher authorities" > who preach a religion of "the Supreme Holy Multi-Orgasmic Individual" -- Yes. See Brave New World. > And the sharing of the experience is then perceived as "Sharing" the > Life-Force. According to my friend's particular branch of Wiccan belief-systems - > perverting sexuality was the Ultimate Evil or "Ultimate Sacrilege of being > anti-Life itself", or even anti-Creation. Rape and pedophilia would carry > immediate death-sentences, and were considered much worse crimes than murder or > manslaughter, abortion or infanticide, or leaving old, sick or disabled people to > die, because to care for them would endanger the entire group's survival. > In particular, adults who sexually abuse children, are considered as "attacking" > or engaging in "wilful destruction" of the "Life-Force" in the young of your > own species. A "species" attack - and as such, the perpetrators of such a crime > were seen as 'abominations' or 'mis-borns' and would not be tolerated in any way, > shape or form, and immediate execution would be performed. Like a rabid dog. > Often the bodies of such perpetrators, would be dismembered and burned and > scattered over rock, so no part of their corpse (or as little as possible) could > "foul" the "Land" which was the "womb" of all species on Earth. I agree. Of course, I'm Wiccan. But this may simply be an untrammeled female viewpoint. We're a female-centered religion and this speaks to my deepest gut instincts as a woman and as a mother. On the other hand, mystery writer Andrew Vacchs would also agree with you, and as far as I can tell, he - and his hero - don't have any religion to speak of. Though I love his characterization of the D.A., a social worker, et. al. as "warrior women". Using the law as their sword. > In accordance with this view of the "sacred value" placed on sexuality, treating > it as a 'transitory' pleasure for instant self-gratification, is seen as > childish and immature. Like a small child, who stamps their foot and demands that > they "want a cookie, and want it NOW!" - we teach our children to wait for > important things, to wait for those "special treats", to have everything you > want, when you want it, decreases its value. In some isolated cultures, a common > practice is for adults to strongly encourage sex-play amongst children within > their age peer group. As they approach puberty and adolescence, they are taught, > amongst other things, about "adult responsibility and obligations" with regards > to their sexuality - only children are allowed to consider sex as "play". Being > careless, irresponsible and disrespectful of your own sexuality, is being > careless, irresponsible, and disrespectful of your Self, of other people, and of > "Life" or "Creation" itself. This was why Morgause was not respected by the > others at Avalon. In MZB's Darkover series the locals consider characters who are exclusively gay, especially those who favor young partners, as having never outgrown their adolescence. A grown-up, while keeping and loving his male partner, chooses an equal to love, and also does his duty by his lineage. (But then, Darkover is a medieval world.) > Similarly, in the Goddess-based religion, sexual activity was often ritualised, > where at Beltaine for example, people could experience it as truly sharing their > own "Life-Force" with that of another person, in awe and wonder, laughter and > exultation, in honour and celebration of being part of the Creation of all Life > on Earth, not just their own. Maybe there's some truth in the vision of the > "Earth Moving" during a particularly memorable sex act. :-)) > > Children in particular, and adults of > either gender, who have been sexually abused, suffer the severest forms of > psychological trauma. Attack the sexuality, and you attack the 'life-force' of a > person, far more effectively than just holding a knife at their throat, or > chopping off their toes. Control their sexuality by whatever means, e.g. > religion, law, force, fear, propaganda, etc and you control entire populations. > Like bribing children with pacifiers, sweets or cookies to keep them quiet, our > culture often bribes us with the 'sexual sell' to keep us quiet, happy and in our > beds. The more sex you have, the more 'potent' you think you are - like the > words of the song, -WorkingClass Hero-, they "keep you doped to the eyeballs, > with religion, and sex and TV". But forbidding sex with harsh penalties also works towards the same end. See "1984"; also see Heinlein's "revolt in 2100." (and read it back to back with Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE. Same culture, one at the beginning and the other at the end.)> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 02:45:58 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Pat wrote: > But it's Marion's universe and once in in, you play by Marion's > rules. Sex as a sacred bonding is a huge advance over the attitudes of > the period she and I grew up in. Sex for casual pleasure is post-Pill and > still to us elders carries overtones of paradise for men, a jungle full > of traps & pitfalls for women. > > > This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual truth. A > > lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should they have to? > > Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have much of an inherent > > meaning -- the meaning is in what the participants bring to it. If an > > individual's viewpoint is that sex is about transient physical pleasure and > > no more, why not leave that person be as long as they inflict no harm upon > > others? The Avalon take on sexuality seems hardly better than the Christian > > to me -- the decisionmaking is still up to "the authorities" instead of the > > individual and pleasure is deferred in favor of duty. There are more than > > these two ways to live, thank Peep. > > > > * Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god I do not see a major difference, with seeing sexuality as being about "transient physical pleasure and nothing more", and sexuality being about "bonding" and/or "spirituality". The former implies that the importance of an individual's (or at most a 'pair') pleasures, desires, and 'rights' override that of the community's values, which is still a "spiritual" value system, just not in the traditional sense. Its spirituality honours the "individual" over all others....and is very characteristic of the "Me-first" generation. Its also encouraged by popular media and culture, especially in the western world - which commercialises sexuality as yet another consumer commodity, telling us all constantly that we will suffer enormous psychological or health problems, if our 'sex-life' isn't satisfactory. The great "Holy Orgasm" has become quite a spiritual icon of the late 20th Century. For example, look at the recent sales figures for the impotence treatment drug Viagra. The message is quite blatant - you can't have a "full life" without a "full sex-life". Commercialising sexuality into an idealised form of spiritual narcissism, is also a very effective mechanism for preventing people from 'bonding' in large numbers. While people are focussed on getting laid, or depressed about not getting laid, or whether their genitals are functioning 'normally' (whatever that is, the bench-marks and goalposts keep changing:), they aren't thinking about political activism, or rebellion, or even just bonding in a larger community with common interests. Another form of the classic Divide-and-Conquer tactic. People who think of sexuality as just like anything else, and just a pleasant form of transient pleasure, are paying "homage" or "honour" to the "higher authorities" who preach a religion of "the Supreme Holy Multi-Orgasmic Individual" - just as much as the women in Mists of Avalon expressed their sexuality in "homage" and "honour" to the Goddess of Nature and married the Land, instead of an individual man. MZB states that part of her research for MOA included conversations with modern-day pagans and Wiccans. One anecdote I have, in a similar fashion, was speaking to a lady Wiccan who told me that their view of sexuality was that it was the most "Sacred" expression of the "Life-Force" - because no matter how much sex is *divorced* from reproduction by technology, culture or personal practises - it remains powerfully symbolic as the ultimate creative act - the creation of 'Life' itself - as well as a powerful "celebration" of Life itself - in honour of its "potential" to create Life. Whether or not a child is created, or even if a child is consciously and actively prevented from being conceived, or even homosexual sexual behaviour ( amongst women interestingly, but not men) the Sex-Act itself still remains an expression and celebration of that *potential*. And the sharing of the experience is then perceived as "Sharing" the Life-Force. According to my friend's particular branch of Wiccan belief-systems - perverting sexuality was the Ultimate Evil or "Ultimate Sacrilege of being anti-Life itself", or even anti-Creation. Rape and pedophilia would carry immediate death-sentences, and were considered much worse crimes than murder or manslaughter, abortion or infanticide, or leaving old, sick or disabled people to die, because to care for them would endanger the entire group's survival. In particular, adults who sexually abuse children, are considered as "attacking" or engaging in "wilful destruction" of the "Life-Force" in the young of your own species. A "species" attack - and as such, the perpetrators of such a crime were seen as 'abominations' or 'mis-borns' and would not be tolerated in any way, shape or form, and immediate execution would be performed. Like a rabid dog. Often the bodies of such perpetrators, would be dismembered and burned and scattered over rock, so no part of their corpse (or as little as possible) could "foul" the "Land" which was the "womb" of all species on Earth. In accordance with this view of the "sacred value" placed on sexuality, treating it as a 'transitory' pleasure for instant self-gratification, is seen as childish and immature. Like a small child, who stamps their foot and demands that they "want a cookie, and want it NOW!" - we teach our children to wait for important things, to wait for those "special treats", to have everything you want, when you want it, decreases its value. In some isolated cultures, a common practice is for adults to strongly encourage sex-play amongst children within their age peer group. As they approach puberty and adolescence, they are taught, amongst other things, about "adult responsibility and obligations" with regards to their sexuality - only children are allowed to consider sex as "play". Being careless, irresponsible and disrespectful of your own sexuality, is being careless, irresponsible, and disrespectful of your Self, of other people, and of "Life" or "Creation" itself. This was why Morgause was not respected by the others at Avalon. Similarly, in the Goddess-based religion, sexual activity was often ritualised, where at Beltaine for example, people could experience it as truly sharing their own "Life-Force" with that of another person, in awe and wonder, laughter and exultation, in honour and celebration of being part of the Creation of all Life on Earth, not just their own. Maybe there's some truth in the vision of the "Earth Moving" during a particularly memorable sex act. :-)) Sexuality is incredibly important to the human race; regardless of how we might reproduce ourselves by artifical means, now, or in the future. Every religion, and ruling-class ideology, since the Year Dot has sought to control it somehow, including our own with its message of liberalism and commercialism and its "playful meaninglessness". Sexuality is at the "central core" of every human being's psyche, soul or personality. Children in particular, and adults of either gender, who have been sexually abused, suffer the severest forms of psychological trauma. Attack the sexuality, and you attack the 'life-force' of a person, far more effectively than just holding a knife at their throat, or chopping off their toes. Control their sexuality by whatever means, e.g. religion, law, force, fear, propaganda, etc and you control entire populations. Like bribing children with pacifiers, sweets or cookies to keep them quiet, our culture often bribes us with the 'sexual sell' to keep us quiet, happy and in our beds. The more sex you have, the more 'potent' you think you are - like the words of the song, -WorkingClass Hero-, they "keep you doped to the eyeballs, with religion, and sex and TV". Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:52:10 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I wrote: > This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual > truth. A lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should > they have to? Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have > much of an inherent meaning -- the meaning is in what the > participants bring to it. If an individual's viewpoint is that sex > is about transient physical pleasure and no more, why not leave that > person be as long as they inflict no harm upon others? The Avalon > take on sexuality seems hardly better than the Christian to me -- > the decisionmaking is still up to "the authorities" instead of the > individual and pleasure is deferred in favor of duty. There are more > than these two ways to live, thank Peep. > > * Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god Pat Mathews wrote: > But it's Marion's universe and once in, you play by Marion's rules. As a reader I have the freedom to continually question whatever I am reading. As a reader, I take issue with MZB's rules. > Sex as a sacred bonding is a huge advance over the attitudes of > the period she and I grew up in. Sex for casual pleasure is > post-Pill and still to us elders carries overtones of paradise for > men, a jungle full of traps & pitfalls for women. I see what you mean. I've heard tales of women in The Movement of the 1960s-70s being used by guys who told them they weren't liberated enough if they didn't believe in "free love." This type of pressure and exploitation qualifies as "inflicting harm" in my book. What I was trying to say is that the idea of sex as sacred bonding plays into the fetishistic tendencies already present in our society. I prefer a philosophy which views sexuality as just another part of everyday life that does not need to be fraught with ritual and emotional issues. This does not mean, as Joyce Jones remarked, that I find "spiritual progression" unimportant. It means that I think an obsession with sexuality and the abstractions of Nature & Culture helps no one in the long run. Instead of flipping the coin over and over (goddess or god, goddess or god?) I would prefer to abandon the currency. This partly explains why I didn't think highly of MoA or Elizabeth Hand's *Waking the Moon* and why I do enjoy some of Samuel Delany's work, Elizabeth A. Lynn's Tornor trilogy and Candas Jane Dorsey's *Black Wine*. In these books, sex CAN be exploitative and CAN be a transcendent spiritual experience, but it can also be just a pleasant way to pass the time in the context of lives that find spiritual meaning elsewhere. And if someone doesn't feel like having sex at all it's not a big deal. I like that. ------------------------- In a somewhat unrelated matter, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Didn't know Peep was a god. Please tell me worship involves graven > images, not ::shudder:: communion. :) *Laugh* If anyone ever actually tasted a Peep the religion would crumble! -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Faith and the Muse -- Elyria "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 03:55:34 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >> This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a > >> person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, > >> Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a > >> book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. > > > >As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. So, one > >answer might be Wicca, but I do not know whether you could call a men > >that nor whether the term is restricted to their priestesses (if > >any) or applied to all followers. And there are probably other > >Goddess-worshippers around, so the term is not comprehensive in any > >case. I read so many different types of perceptions/views on this some years ago, when I was researching "goddess-symbolism" - and heard different terms, expressions etc so often, I would get frustrated and annoyed at the inconsistencies and differences in approach to the symbolism/rituals and theologies and even arguments about northern European paganism, versus Celtic paganism, versus Pelasgian (ancient Greek) paganism versus Minoan paganism versus 20th Century eco-feminism..sheesh! There were more 'factions', and 'branches' and 'sects' than the UN! Although regardless of the "Name" they call themselves or each other - the underlying symbolism of the Goddess, the Holy Trinity images etc remain fairly consistent. Later on, I changed my mind - well-defined ideologies, and theologies etc become 'rigid', or static, and I associate them with the boring sameness, and inflexibility, and resistance to change, that I see in patriarchal religions and other philosophies from capitalism to communism. I once read that feminist writers like Simone de Beavoir and later 60's and 70's feminists were often criticised for being eclectic .. this often puzzled me, what is inherently wrong, or unscholarly, or sinful, about being selective, taking pieces of philosophies which are appropriate and leaving the rest of it behind, and building something new from it? I finally figured that the enormous variety found in concepts and ideas of Goddess spirituality were indeed very appropriate to feminism, in that feminism is not 'rigid' , or 'fixed' and half-dead like patriarchal thought processes. It is constantly Moving, Spiralling, and Evolving. And thats the way it should be, like the old joke about women always *changing their minds*. These days I question the assumption which makes that a put-down or criticism of women, as to me, it infers 'Evolution' or 'Growth' of the mind, of the spirit, of Life itself. At least changing minds, isn't burying the mind in solid concrete to remain "root-bound" for centuries. So Jessie, I would recommend that you make a name up:)) As long as there is sufficient information in the context for readers to recognise who/what you are describing etc. What the heck - make up several! LOL Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:00:12 +0200 Reply-To: thomasg@ifi.uio.no Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > You might try looking in the alternative religion or spirituality > (or, sometimes, women's studies) sections of your local bookstore > for books on the topic. Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today" is a good place to start. See more info about it at Amazon.com. Thomas Gramstad thomasg@ifi.uio.no ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:04:09 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Being >careless, irresponsible and disrespectful of your own sexuality, is being >careless, irresponsible, and disrespectful of your Self, of other people, and >of "Life" or "Creation" itself. This was why Morgause was not respected by the >others at Avalon. I've seen this claim a couple of times but I'm not sure it stands up. I don't think Morgause was careless, irresponsible, or disrespectful of herself. She may have been disrespectful of other people's boundaries (I wouldn't say it's oppressive to say that you shouldn't try to seduce your hostess's husband without her approval), but she didn't think sex was unimportant, was nothing. She simply ignored everyone else's strictures about when it was appropriate to do it. Although I felt that Avalon's *stated* views towards sex were admirable (take it seriously, have a great time, respect your partners, don't use it for evil) it always seemed to me that many of Avalon's priestesses didn't really think the way I would expect people to think if those were their rules. Morgaine worries and fusses about sex as much as Gwenhwyfar -- and yet doesn't she say that Gwenhwyfar, who's in the same situation as Morgause except that Gwenhwyfar likes her husband more, should sleep with whoever she wants, because to refuse that is a sin against the Goddess? Unless I gravely misunderstand something, it just seems inconsistent to me. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:17:07 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU See also Francesca De Grandis' "Be A Goddess." Wicca is the modern practice of the "Old Religion." Ergo -- those who practice it, of whatever gender, are Wiiccans. In my experience the priests and priestesses do not "trade off" based on tiredness or anything else. Most Wiccans go through some sort of study and initiation (generally in steps) to attain the title of Priestess or Priest. It isn't just whoever happens to want to claim the title. "Pagan" more or less means primarily earth-based religions which are non- mainstream faiths. Most of the names I've heard for those who especially honor the Goddess have been somewhat cumbersome -- "Goddess-oriented" or "Goddess-based" being the least wordy. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:11:27 CDT Reply-To: a-quick@carthage.edu Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Angela Quick Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Many posts have attributed Morguase's negative portrayal in Mists of Avalon as the result of her sexual behavior. This does not seem to be the central issue for me. Instead, could her negative portrayal be based on her insatiable, amoral pursuit of power? Each action she takes in the course of the story is a conscious effort to accumulate power. She uses her sexuality to bid for influence throughout the novel, starting with Gorlois and continuing through the young captain at the end (forget his name...). She shelters Morgaine and fosters Mordred because she thinks this will give her influence over two major contenders for the throne. She prevents Guinevere from conceiving/bearing a child (contender for the throne not under Morguase's control) by having a servant slip her drugs. She advances her own sons, especially Gawain, as the legal successors to the throne. She uses blood magic to advance her position. And in all these actions, she never asks "what is right?" or "is this wrong?", only "what will this get me?" She is hard, ruthless, unprincipled, and very nearly successful. One might rather admire her, if only she weren't so nasty. Incidentally, does this fit the idea of her wearing the fourth, hidden face of the Goddess - attributes of this face being wantonness, ruthlessness, violence, blood lust, and destruction? (Let me know if I'm way off the mark here.) BTW, thanks for the stimulating discussion and the wonderful reading suggestions. I'm off to petition the librarian... wait, I _am_ the librarian. :-] ------------- Original Text From: "Pat" , on 7/3/98 1:16 PM: On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > our 'sex-life' isn't satisfactory. The great "Holy Orgasm" has become > quite a spiritual icon of the late 20th Century. I had a therapist who kept pushing that on me - a divorced woman well past 45. I tried. I really tried. The harder I tried the more my sex drive dried up. But I find I lead a full, rich life without one. Maybe I'm like the deaf person who can't appreciate Beethoven and Mozart; but there's plenty else out there to enjoy. For example, look at the recent sales > figures for the impotence treatment drug Viagra. The message is quite > blatant - you can't have a "full life" without a "full sex-life". Commercialising > sexuality into an idealised form of spiritual narcissism, is also a very > effective mechanism for preventing people from 'bonding' in large numbers. But, boy, does it sell Viagra. And cigarettes. And cars. And perfume. This isn't about sex; it's about $$$$$. > interests. Another form of the classic Divide-and-Conquer tactic. People who > think of sexuality as just like anything else, and just a pleasant form of > transient pleasure, are paying "homage" or "honour" to the "higher authorities" > who preach a religion of "the Supreme Holy Multi-Orgasmic Individual" -- Yes. See Brave New World. > And the sharing of the experience is then perceived as "Sharing" the > Life-Force. According to my friend's particular branch of Wiccan belief-systems - > perverting sexuality was the Ultimate Evil or "Ultimate Sacrilege of being > anti-Life itself", or even anti-Creation. Rape and pedophilia would carry > immediate death-sentences, and were considered much worse crimes than > murder or manslaughter, abortion or infanticide, or leaving old, sick or disabled > people to die, because to care for them would endanger the entire group's survival. > In particular, adults who sexually abuse children, are considered as "attacking" > or engaging in "wilful destruction" of the "Life-Force" in the young of your > own species. A "species" attack - and as such, the perpetrators of such a crime > were seen as 'abominations' or 'mis-borns' and would not be tolerated in any way, > shape or form, and immediate execution would be performed. Like a rabid dog. > Often the bodies of such perpetrators, would be dismembered and burned and > scattered over rock, so no part of their corpse (or as little as possible) could > "foul" the "Land" which was the "womb" of all species on Earth. I agree. Of course, I'm Wiccan. But this may simply be an untrammeled female viewpoint. We're a female-centered religion and this speaks to my deepest gut instincts as a woman and as a mother. On the other hand, mystery writer Andrew Vacchs would also agree with you, and as far as I can tell, he - and his hero - don't have any religion to speak of. Though I love his characterization of the D.A., a social worker, et. al. as "warrior women". Using the law as their sword. > In accordance with this view of the "sacred value" placed on sexuality, treating > it as a 'transitory' pleasure for instant self-gratification, is seen as > childish and immature. Like a small child, who stamps their foot and demands that > they "want a cookie, and want it NOW!" - we teach our children to wait for > important things, to wait for those "special treats", to have everything you > want, when you want it, decreases its value. In some isolated cultures, a common > practice is for adults to strongly encourage sex-play amongst children within > their age peer group. As they approach puberty and adolescence, they are taught, > amongst other things, about "adult responsibility and obligations" with regards > to their sexuality - only children are allowed to consider sex as "play". Being > careless, irresponsible and disrespectful of your own sexuality, is being > careless, irresponsible, and disrespectful of your Self, of other people, and of > "Life" or "Creation" itself. This was why Morgause was not respected by the > others at Avalon. In MZB's Darkover series the locals consider characters who are exclusively gay, especially those who favor young partners, as having never outgrown their adolescence. A grown-up, while keeping and loving his male partner, chooses an equal to love, and also does his duty by his lineage. (But then, Darkover is a medieval world.) > Similarly, in the Goddess-based religion, sexual activity was often ritualised, > where at Beltaine for example, people could experience it as truly sharing their > own "Life-Force" with that of another person, in awe and wonder, laughter and > exultation, in honour and celebration of being part of the Creation of all Life > on Earth, not just their own. Maybe there''s some truth in the vision of the > "Earth Moving" during a particularly memorable sex act. :-)) > > Children in particular, and adults of > either gender, who have been sexually abused, suffer the severest forms of > psychological trauma. Attack the sexuality, and you attack the 'life-force' of a > person, far more effectively than just holding a knife at their throat, or > chopping off their toes. Control their sexuality by whatever means, e.g. > religion, law, force, fear, propaganda, etc and you control entire populations. > Like bribing children with pacifiers, sweets or cookies to keep them quiet, our > culture often bribes us with the 'sexual sell' to keep us quiet, happy and in our > beds. The more sex you have, the more 'potent' you think you are - like the > words of the song, -WorkingClass Hero-, they "keep you doped to the eyeballs, > with religion, and sex and TV". But forbidding sex with harsh penalties also works towards the same end. See "1984"; also see Heinlein's "revolt in 2100." (and read it back to back with Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAID'S TALE. Same culture, one at the beginning and the other at the end.)> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:05:16 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I still think that Nimue/Kevin story was extremely disgusting. The whole concept of raising the girl in isolation just to sacrifice her body, and in the end, her life for a political game seems to me pretty unjustified, to put it mild. "Punishing" Kevin did not carry any practical meaning in saving Avalon or make any difference in the political situation. It was a simple, primitive, KGB-style political revenge against a "dissident". Using a body of a 14-year-old girl for that was IMHO sexual exploitation. It seems to me that Avalon priestesses were caught in what is called the self-perpetuating circle of abuse. First, Vivian almost destroyed Morgaine by making her screw her brother. Then Morgaine destroyed Nimue, also "for the sake of a high cause". And each of them is being very self-righteous about it: "I went through it, so you have to as well. That's life, baby" or something pretty damn close. Just like those families where parents rape their children who then grow up and rape their own children, and so on, perpetually... Why is it that female sexuality always have to "serve" some "high purpose"? How is standing in for "the land" (an object) in the inauguration ceremony of a king is better than being married to a stranger as a free supplement to your father's horses? In Kevin's cause, it was not even a "marriage to the land", he was not a king, but a traitor. He would probably die by himself couple years later, or get burned at a stake by his new buddies-the priests. What was the point of sacrificing the girl? Especially considering the fact that she was the only one who could take over after Morgaine. They talked so much that there was almost no one left to take over as the next High Priestess, and they simply threw away their only hope. The main point of Christianity was also that "sex is not a plaything". Avalon's position on it does not seem any better. Having sex only for procreation, or only "to please the Goddess", either way is only a "sacred duty" that women must surrender to, whether they like it or not. Why is it that male sexuality is never used as a form of spiritual currency? >The freedom to treat great spiritual truths lightly doesn't seem to > me to be much of a freedom. Morgause's sexual promiscuity was frowned upon > because it involved no bond with the land or even with the men she chose, > no bond at all. It was a plaything, and the religion did not see sex as a > plaything. I don't find that attitude oppressive, I find it liberating > to know we each possess this power. I think what robs a person of the potential for growth is when she kills herself at the age of 14 after being used as a hooker by her primary caretakers for the sake of their social intrigues. One cannot grow when she's dead. Honestly, Nimue's story alone made me feel that Avalon got what it deserved. Maybe it had been a great spiritual power at some point, but by the time described in Mists it seemed to degrade into a bunch of control freaks who did not want to relinquish their power over the country and would stop at nothing to keep it. IMHO. Marina P.S.I really liked The Mists of Avalon. It's a beautiful tragic story (at least most of the time). But if it was for real and accurately represented historical facts, I would be glad that Avalon lost its power. I think I would hate to live in a world ruled by psychics. It's bad enough when they advise to the spouses of presidents... http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 01:53:37 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Mary-Ellen Maynard Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Debra wrote; <> There are many goddesses and many people who worship them -presumably there are many names for the worshippers. As a radical lesbian eco-feminist witch - I call myself a Dianic Wiccan. For me that's a woman-only; Goddess worshipping form of spirituality that is not centered around a particular historical or mythological Goddess, rather the Goddess as manifested in every woman. Others who also call themselves either Dianic Wiccans (generally women only) or Wiccans (generally includes men) have different definitions. I'd suggest reading Z Budapest, Diane Stein, Jade and a host(ess?) of others. Petra wrote: As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. None of the wiccans I know can even loosely be accused of belonging to a cult. As best I can tell, one of the few spiritual tenets that most Wiccans of any type will agree to; is that each of us is ultimately and personally responsible for our own spirituality. Hardly an appropriate starting point for any cult. I agree with the woman that suggested (sorry, I lost your post somehow - you said it so much better) that the very uncodified and anarchic nature of Goddess spirituality with its emphasis on creation and evolution rather than hierarchy and form is its greatest strength. Certainly that's much of its attraction for me. While MZB may have done a great job of research and spoken to many Wiccans and pagans, her vision of Avalon is based on her view of the world. From my perspective - she doesn't "get" what a woman loving, Goddess centered spirituality is about. She may tell this story from a female point of view and may have included some feminist values. However, I'd like to remind us all that she not only disavows feminism, she has actively expressed hostility toward feminism and feminists. Any wonder that in her Avalon; the so-called Goddess spirituality is mysoginist and suspiciously patriarchal, as in Nimue's sacrifice, etc., etc.? Anyone care to speculate on what an intentionally feminist version of this story might be like? And Marina - Don't go knocking people who've had psychic experiences (presidential spousal advisors notwithstanding); you never know who might really be one - yourself included. Thank you all for the interesting and amusing discussion! Mary-Ellen Maynard Crystal Mist Glass Guffey, CO ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:51:27 +1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Russell Williams Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi all, Karen here again!!!!!! Trough out the ages we "Wiccans" have been called many things from various other cultures. I believe that first you should look at the period you wish to set the book in and then research that period in history. I don't feel will find an exact answer to your question but I would suggest you read Doreen Valient. She has helped me in my quest. I now call myself a Healer as I am connected to all life forces, "good" and "evil" and believe I hold a balance of sort between the two and am able to use Mother Nature, a Goddess and a God's qualities to heal myself and others around me. I know that this might seem egotistical but to use our natural forces to heal with the help from the old ways I think is better than tearing life apart. My short answer would be is to research through history until you find an answer you're comfortable with and instinctively "feel" it is the right choice. Blessed Be. Karen c/- russwill@alphalink.com.au. -----Original Message----- From: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature [mailto:FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On Behalf Of Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Sent: Thursday, 16 July 1998 0:53 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature >> This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a >> person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, >> Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a >> book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. > >As far as I know Bradley based her book on the Wicca cult. So, one >answer might be Wicca, but I do not know whether you could call a men >that nor whether the term is restricted to their priestesses (if >any) or applied to all followers. And there are probably other >Goddess-worshippers around, so the term is not comprehensive in any >case. Certainly "Wiccan" applies both to men and to "layfolk" though most of the pagans I know hold to the idea that there are no layfolk (the role of "priest" or "priestess" rotates, or is traded off, or is decided based on who's tired and who's shy). "Pagan" is a pretty good bet for what today's goddess-worshipping practitioners call themselves, although literally the word covers a much wider spectrum. You might try looking in the alternative religion or spirituality (or, sometimes, women's studies) sections of your local bookstore for books on the topic. That can give you a wider range of names, as well as letting you know if you're writing something inaccurate (not that you can't, just that you should know). jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:00:51 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Debra Euler wrote: (snip) > This may seem off-topic, but what is the preferred way to refer to a > person who is a Goddess-worshipper? Like, Christian, Muslim, > Pagan...Goddess-worshipper? It seems a bit clunky. This is for a > book I'm working on, so it does have to do with SF. Pagan is the generic word. Specific branches of Paganism are Wicca, Church of All Worlds, Asatru, Faerie and a whole bunch of others. You might want to read *Drawing Down the Moon* by Margot Adler to get a good overview of the history of modern Paganism. > Debra Euler > DAW Books Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:33:43 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA chocolate cake To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie, I think it's like this. My sister makes something called Turtle Cake. Have you heard of it? It's chocolate cake with gobs of caramel filling and chocolate frosting on top. So good it could make you wet your pants. Here's Gwenhwyfar dying, or at least suffering, for a great big hunk of that Turtle cake, but saying "Oh, don't worry about me, I'm just fine here with my corn flakes." On the other hand there's Morgause. She's so busy gobbling up those stale doughnuts she's had lying around the castle for the past week that if you presented her with the Turtle cake she'd be so sated she wouldn't get the full flavor even if she ate half the cake. Morgaine is saying "For Goddess sake, Gwenhwyfar, eat the cake!" Joyce Jones >Although I felt that Avalon's *stated* views towards sex were admirable (take >it seriously, have a great time, respect your partners, don't use it for evil) >it always seemed to me that many of Avalon's priestesses didn't really think >the way I would expect people to think if those were their rules. Morgaine >worries and fusses about sex as much as Gwenhwyfar -- and yet doesn't she say >that Gwenhwyfar, who's in the same situation as Morgause except that >Gwenhwyfar likes her husband more, should sleep with whoever she wants, >because to refuse that is a sin against the Goddess? Unless I gravely >misunderstand something, it just seems inconsistent to me. > >jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:21:45 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature -Reply To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> I believe that first you should look at the period you wish to set the book in and then research that period in history. Karen and everyone else who responded: Thanks for all your suggestions. Actually, the book is set about a generation into the future, so this *is* my research, since I don't normally hang out with Dianic Wiccans, or Pagans, etc. I have read quite a bit of the literature, but since culture, aided and abetted by the Internet, is changing so rapidly these days, I just thought I'd take an informal up-to-date poll. I suspect that best suggestion is just to make something up. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:28:58 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Debra Euler Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) -Reply To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >>Pagan is the generic word. Specific branches of Paganism are Wicca, Church of All Worlds, Asatru, Faerie and a whole bunch of others. Stacy-- I just don't like the term "pagan" because it historically was not a definition of a specific religion, it was the definition of what a religion wasn't--Christian. Taking the term back from the Christians with a modern, non-pejorative definition is like gays taking back the term "queer" for their own use; but both somehow still leave a weird taste in the mouth of this heterosexual, atheistic person, and so I avoid using them. Debra ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:36:40 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA chocolate cake To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Here's Gwenhwyfar dying, or at least suffering, for a great big hunk of that >Turtle cake, but saying "Oh, don't worry about me, I'm just fine here with >my corn flakes." On the other hand there's Morgause. She's so busy >gobbling up those stale doughnuts she's had lying around the castle for the >past week that if you presented her with the Turtle cake she'd be so sated >she wouldn't get the full flavor even if she ate half the cake. Morgaine >is saying "For Goddess sake, Gwenhwyfar, eat the cake!" This is a charming and vivid metaphor but again I'm not sure it's truly applicable. I'd agree that this is probably how Morgaine sees it; but since I'm sure it's not how Morgause sees it, we're back to one group of people telling all women what is and what is not acceptable sexuality. What makes Lancelot Turtle cake, while all of Morgause's lovers are stale donuts? Is it that Gwenhwyfar is In Love (TM) while Morgause is just having a good time? Is it that we think Lancelot is a Good Person while Morgause's lovers are not? Nothing but the lens of Morgaine's perception shows us why Gwenhwyfar's desire is more valid than Morgause's. What if Lancelot's a thoughtless, mediocre lover and Morgause has found the ten best men in bed out of the entire population? Who's eating donuts now? (I really do like this metaphor, I'm not just trying to make fun of it.) I do agree with whoever said that Morgause's ethics were appalling and that her behavior towards other people was horrible. But it seems to me that (a) her sexual behavior was not necessarily bad in any objective way and (b) her sexuality was *supposed* to show her as a bad character, which would be a deliberate (and, to me, offensive) choice on the part of the author. There are certainly times when sexual behavior can be objectively bad: when it's for the purpose of hurting someone; when it's used to force someone to do something they don't want to do, or trick them into it; when it's demeaning or degrading. But I don't think Morgause does those things; and so I particularly resent the fact that her sexuality is used to show bad character (IMO). jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:46:28 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It seems to me that all religions have a bad habit of trying to proscribe humans' sexual behavior, one way or another. I personally think that it's just a way of religious leaders to secure control over their followers. If people have to consult a priest or priestess to know what is the "right", "spiritual" attitude towards sexuality, they are more likely to become dependent on those advices and get more motivated to financially support the religious institution. Since the church (any) cannot collect taxes, the only way its officials can provide for themselves is to convince their followers in the vital necessity of their "spiritual quidance" in matters of birth, death, and procreation. Since births and deaths do not happen that often in the lives of most of the people, "spiritually guiding" their sex lives is the best way to exercise control over the lives of individuals. So they would not accidentally start making decisions about these things on their own and cut down on the donations to their "spiritual leaders". In my humble opinion, every person's body and sexuality belongs to him/her. And every person has a right to decide whether they want sex to be a form of worship, an expression of love, a way to meet people, or all of the above depending on the circumstances. The only role of sex that can be harmful to the spiritual condition of the society is when it is used for violence and humiliation. In all other cases, it's none of the society's business, and even less so of the church, Christian or Goddess-worshipping alike. Sex is a physical function of a body, the same as eating or sleeping. You can make the act of eating into some worship-like experience, too(think diets), assign to it some earth-shaking meaning (e.g. if you work with women, try going around with a box of chocolate candies. They will act like you offer them crack or something: "Oh, this is so bad for you!"), or act in some other exalted fashion towards it. But for some people eating is just something they do and never think about twice. The same is for sex. If someone want to turn sex (or eating, or using bathroom) into a form of spiritual bonding with the universe, they are welcome to do so. However, it does not mean everyone has to feel that way. I think that organized religions should stay away from people's sex lives just the same as they should be kept away from the government. Spiritual advisers are only humans who assign themselves the authority of Gods, and that never comes to anything good. Just my opinion. Marina On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Julieanne wrote: > Pat wrote: > > > But it's Marion's universe and once in in, you play by Marion's > > rules. Sex as a sacred bonding is a huge advance over the attitudes of > > the period she and I grew up in. Sex for casual pleasure is post-Pill and > > still to us elders carries overtones of paradise for men, a jungle full > > of traps & pitfalls for women. > > > > > This all assumes that sex IS about bonding, power and spiritual truth. A > > > lot of people simply don't view it that way, and why should they have to? > > > Sexual activity, as many areas of life, doesn't have much of an inherent > > > meaning -- the meaning is in what the participants bring to it. If an > > > individual's viewpoint is that sex is about transient physical pleasure and > > > no more, why not leave that person be as long as they inflict no harm upon > > > others? The Avalon take on sexuality seems hardly better than the Christian > > > to me -- the decisionmaking is still up to "the authorities" instead of the > > > individual and pleasure is deferred in favor of duty. There are more than > > > these two ways to live, thank Peep. > > > > > > * Peep, the yellow genderless marshmallow god > > I do not see a major difference, with seeing sexuality as being about "transient > physical pleasure and nothing more", and sexuality being about "bonding" and/or > "spirituality".The former implies that the importance of an individual's (or at > most a 'pair') pleasures, desires, and 'rights' override that of the community's > values, which is still a "spiritual" value system, just not in the traditional > sense. Its spirituality honours the "individual" over all others....and is very > characteristic of the "Me-first" generation. http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:18:55 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Pagan/Profane (was BDG MOA sexuality ) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I was disconcerted to see the Greek classics described as "profane" in "Tom Brown's Schooldays"; it was a while before I caught on that the author was using the word opposed to "sacred", rather than today's common usage. Off topic, but it does relate to SF and attitudes to religious variations: has anyone else giggled his/her/its head off over Terry Pratchett's take on Tom Brown/Little Arthur in "Pyramids"? (Catweasel has, I expect!) And William Brown as the potential Antichrist in "Good Omens" was sheer joy. On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:28:58 -0400 Debra Euler writes: >>>Pagan is the generic word. Specific branches of Paganism are Wicca, >Church of All Worlds, Asatru, Faerie and a whole bunch of others. > >Stacy-- > >I just don't like the term "pagan" because it historically was not a >definition of a specific religion, it was the definition of what a >religion wasn't--Christian. Taking the term back from the Christians >with a modern, non-pejorative definition is like gays taking back the >term "queer" for their own use; but both somehow still leave a weird >taste in the mouth of this heterosexual, atheistic person, and so I >avoid using them. > >Debra ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:15:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA sexuality (off topic) -Reply To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Debra Euler wrote: > >>Pagan is the generic word. Specific branches of Paganism are Wicca, > Church of All Worlds, Asatru, Faerie and a whole bunch of others. > I just don't like the term "pagan" because it historically was not a > definition of a specific religion, it was the definition of what a > religion wasn't--Christian. True, Pagan was a term used to describe any non-Christian religion. I guess it was better than pointing and saying, "Those people over there who ain't Christian." > Taking the term back from the Christians with a modern, non-pejorative > definition is like gays taking back the term "queer" for their own use; > but both somehow still leave a weird taste in the mouth of this > heterosexual, atheistic person, and so I avoid using them. I just don't find the word Pagan insulting. It was meant that way but it turned out to be a rather handy word. I can't think of another word that fits my religion quite so well. If you want to avoid using the word Pagan then use a specific religion like Druidry. BTW there are a number of people who call themselves Heathens instead of Pagans. > Debra Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:37:19 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Religions, pagan & otherwise & sex To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Pat wrote: > For a look at what might happen if a Goddess religion got co-opted > by the government, real L. Neil Smith's RAINBOW CADENZA. Feminist? The > culture is hideously anti-feminist. The heroine escapes and thumbs her > nose at it. Call it a Horrible Example - and not in the usual sense. I read *Rainbow Cadenza* over a year ago. It is one of the few books I have read that I still think about. The book was disturbing on many different levels. I can't say if I -liked- the book but it has certainly stuck in my mind longer than many books that I enjoyed. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews > mathews@unm.edu Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:09:44 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Erin Garrett wrote: > As long as we are on the topic of Wicca and Wiccans, I have a question: what > is the history of the Wicaan faith? I've heard it called the "old religion," but > then I've also read that it is a relatively new movement (i.e., 2oth century) > with more indebtedness Lovecraft than pagan culture. My ignorance is > painful--does anyone have a thumb-nail sketch of its development? Wicca covers a wide range of practice and belief and is not strictly based on any one historical religion. To get a better idea, visit the alt.religion.wicca Frequently Asked Questions page at http://www.teleport.com/~rain/arwfaq.html -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Faith and the Muse -- Elyria "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 20:37:03 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Alison Page Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] pagan nomenclature To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Erin said - > As long as we are on the topic of Wicca and Wiccans, I have a question: > what is the history of the Wicaan faith? I've heard it called the "old religion," > but then I've also read that it is a relatively new movement (i.e., 20th century) > with more indebtedness Lovecraft than pagan culture. My ignorance is > painful--does anyone have a thumb-nail sketch of its development? Forget Lovecraft for a start. A few sad sacks who reckon themselves to be satanists might get into lovecraft.. but wiccans.. no. Paganism of any kind is very cut off from it's roots in any overt sense, on account of the fact that the people who used to practice it all got killed off or frightened into silence a long long time ago (*). Some folks reckon they have family traditions going way back, and perhaps they are right.. the thing is nobody can really tell, and after a few years of this, nobody will ever know. I think a lot of the practice of modern wicca was more or less invented by gerald gardner in the 20s and 30s. I know not everyone will agree with me but I think a lot of the words and rituals aren't very old at all. But the spirit is very old indeed of course, and perhaps that's what matters. Alison (*) sorry i mean in the european tradition, the problem is less pronounced in some other parts of the world ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:38:42 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists and sex and power To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm finally catching up on this group's email. I had comments mostly on Marina's postings, which I'll excerpt here willy-nilly and gratuitously out of context. Well, I'll do my best to maintain context, but please give me a little slack. There's a clip from one of Jessie's excellent postings as well. At 05:08 PM 7/7/98 -0500, Marina wrote: >What I found interesting about Margause was her sexual assertiveness. >Comparing with everyone else, including Morgaine, who is bouncing between "a >woman can choose her lovers, it's her Goddess-given right" ... I certainly agree that Morgause was the only one who saw what she wanted and took it. The rest of them just drove me nuts. You know, I was surprised that the "woman can choose her lovers" wasn't necessarily the case. Really, it was more like the priestesses had no control, but surrendered to the Goddess who directed them, and even then only at the holy times like Beltane. When Morgaine was freaking out one of those zillions of times with Lancelet, her problem seemed partly to be that she felt guilty wanting him for herself, rather than to "have" him while being possessed by the Goddess. From what I could make of the time she ended up seducing him, she got mad at him trying to please her, instead of just humping her. Maybe I missed something here and y'all can help me understand what happened. This was just before she assumed her big-bad-priestess glamour and chewed him out. I guess you (Marina) said this yourself in a later post: >So basically, it was the same >old idea of "as long as you don't enjoy it, it's not a sin". I guess I expected the Avalon girls to be more "sex-positive" as we say today, seeing sex as a manifestation of the power of the goddess. But not in this story anyway. As Marina said, Morgause was the only woman who took what she wanted. Much later, Marina commented: >The main point of Christianity was also that "sex is not a plaything". >Avalon's position on it does not seem any better. Having sex only for >procreation, or only "to please the Goddess", either way is only a "sacred >duty" that women must surrender to, whether they like it or not. Why is it >that male sexuality is never used as a form of spiritual currency? Excellent point. Can anyone name an example of male sexuality used in this way? >Remember, at the beginning, Vivian says that "Goddess has a fourth face >(besides Virgin/Mother/Wisewoman), and I hope that Margause will >never wear this face". For what I understand, in the end it was implied >that Margause ended up wearing that fourth face, the 4th main role >of a woman, besides virgin/mother/old crone -- the whore. Is this truly the 4th face? I thought the 4th face was death, or something close to evil or destruction. I didn't see much discussion of what this 4th face represented in emails so far. Other ideas? >Going back to Margause, it seems to me that her loose sexuality was the main >reason she was chosen for one of the very few totally "bad guys" in the >book. It was as if her unrestrained interest in men from early age was >supposed to prepare the reader to see her turning into a throat-slashing >monster later in the book. Which I think was not only non-feminist, but >pretty much mysogenistic. I agree. I think her acceptance of her own sexual power, as opposed to it just being a manifestation of the goddess, is what made her interesting. It was as if turning her into a monster at the end was the nail in the sex-positive (or even feminist, you could argue) coffin for the book. And as Jessie so eloquently pointed out, there's a not-so-subtle comparison between Morgause's affairs and the "true" love Morgaine (and of course that twit Gwyn) has for Lance, painting Morgause and her sexuality as bad: >Nothing but the lens of Morgaine's perception shows us why >Gwenhwyfar's desire is more valid than Morgause's. From a later post, Marina said: >This was what I did not like about the Avalon the way it's portrayed in >this book the most. It bothered me that its priestesses -- both Vivian and >Morgaine -- seemed to care very little about anyone's lives or feelings. >Power is a very nice thing, but the price one os willing to pay for it >should have some limits. And the more I think about it, the more I feel >that the rulers of Avalon brought their fall on themselves. Which was >probably better for everyone, anyway. I would hate to see that people >who treat others like worthless pawns would prevail. I get what you're saying here, but it did seem to me they felt remorse about using people this way, and spent most of the book quite miserable because of it. I wonder, though, if it would have been less an offensive, or at least less surprising, misuse of power if it were from men. Why can't female characters wield power like this, and pay the price? Did anyone else have problems believing the Kevin character? I thought he was tough to figure out from the beginning, and never felt I understood his role in the story. Then there was his strange affair with Morgaine - did she really think she cared for him? It didn't fool me. Then to have him be such a traitor and not even know it. Perhaps he was a symbol of why Avalon fell - the people who thought they supported it didn't even know they were killing it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 23:17:46 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rudy Leon Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists and sex and power To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU nb: my new version of eudora for some reason has no spellcheck. I deeply apologize for my typing incompetencies... At 02:38 PM 7/18/98 -0700, Jen Kraul wrote: (actually, I think Marina wrote this part) >>Remember, at the beginning, Vivian says that "Goddess has a fourth face >>(besides Virgin/Mother/Wisewoman), and I hope that Margause will >>never wear this face". For what I understand, in the end it was implied >>that Margause ended up wearing that fourth face, the 4th main role >>of a woman, besides virgin/mother/old crone -- the whore. I've always thought the fourth face was one which implied destruction. the really neglected face of the goddess in Western spirituality.... The mother lion defending her litter, the Kali sort of energy. Forest fires and earthquakes, disaster in the Chinese sense of devastation leading to and neccesary for opportunity and change... And Margause, through her shaping of Mordred, fulfilled this destructive energy. I never really thought about the sexually voracious part of her character as playing in, but what people have been saying makes sense, and really annoys me. She is played as the one true 'bad guy' and her sexual freedom is part of that. Can't believe I missed that! Maybe its because I haven't read MOA in about 2 years.... >>From a later post, Marina said: >This was what I did not like about the Avalon the way it's portrayed in >this book the most. It bothered me that its priestesses -- both Vivian and >Morgaine -- seemed to care very little about anyone's lives or feelings. >Power is a very nice thing, but the price one os willing to pay for it >should have some limits. And the more I think about it, the more I feel >that the rulers of Avalon brought their fall on themselves. Which was >probably better for everyone, anyway. I would hate to see that people >who treat others like worthless pawns would prevail. |I get what you're saying here, but it did seem to me they felt remorse |about using people this way, and spent most of the book quite miserable |because of it. I wonder, though, if it would have been less an offensive, |or at least less surprising, misuse of power if it were from men. Why |can't female characters wield power like this, and pay the price? |Did anyone else have problems believing the Kevin character? I thought |he was tough to figure out from the beginning, and never felt I |understood his role in the story. Then there was his strange affair with |Morgaine - did she really think she cared for him? It didn't fool me. |Then to have him be such a traitor and not even know it. Perhaps he was |a symbol of why Avalon fell - the people who thought they supported it |didn't even know they were killing it. Two points here: First, as has been said over and over, the Arthur story had certain elements which had to played within, Avalon had to fall, Christianity had to win out. I kind of appreciate that MZB had Avalon fall due to certain incomptencies of the priestesses rather then the vast srpitiual and worldy superiority of Christianity. This way, the women retained some agency. If I remember right, I had felt that the mishandling from Avalon came about because the religion was not one which had any experience with this sort of crisis and the leadership it required (or that they turned to) was in fact counter to their religious way. Like I said, I haven't read it for two years, but I have read it 6 six times (which I don't recommend. It doesn't hold up well in repeated readings), so I have had lots of various reactions and responses to it. The second point: When that mythically and feministly (like that's a word!) offensive piece of eye candy on Merlin came out a few months ago, MZB was interviewed in TV Guide. She basically said that in writing MOA Merlin was the hardest character for her to come to terms with, becasue she felt he was portrayed rather schizophrenically throughout the Arturian stuff. The only was she could come to terms with the widely varied actions attributed to him was to turn Merlon in The Merlin, an office of the Druids, which she then was able to fill with different people. Kevin is the non-canonical result, the depository of all that Merlin did that wasn't so very goddess positive... I think the end result is a weird character who doesn't really hang together well. I have really been enjoying peole's discussion on this book. I got so carried away the first two times I read MOA that I felt like I lived it--there were no critical faculties involved at all. My later readings were really flavored by the loss of that experience, and were far less watchful than this crew has been. You gyns really help me get more out of the books I/we read. On a completely off topic subject, I went to Seneca Falls on Thursday and heard Hillary talk--she's no radical but a surprisingly solid feminist! the 150 years would have been better marked if she had been speaking as Madam President rather than the first lady though... George Pataki (Gov of NY) made an equally powerful impact on me-- in a much more negative way. He doesn't even have enough of a grip on 'The Woman Question' to hire staffers to clue him in.... Rudy Leon Ph.D. candidate Department of Religion Syracuse University releon@syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:59:09 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Mists and sex and power To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Sat, 18 Jul 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I wonder, though, if it would have been less an offensive, > or at least less surprising, misuse of power if it were from men. Why > can't female characters wield power like this, and pay the price? I agree that women should not be judged harsher than men for abusing the power. I also think, though, that they should not be given slack for obnoxious behavior just for being female. I believe that people should be responsible for their actions towards those who trust them, regardless of gender. That's what equality is about, isn't it? There is no reason for women in power to be "nicer" than men, nor get away with being assholes just because they are women. I think it's very important to maintain this balance in order to see all people as humans first. At least that's what I think. > Did anyone else have problems believing the Kevin character? I thought he > was tough to figure out from the beginning, and never felt I understood his > role in the story. Then there was his strange affair with Morgaine - did > she really think she cared for him? It didn't fool me. Then to have him > be such a traitor and not even know it. Perhaps he was a symbol of why > Avalon fell - the people who thought they supported it didn't even know > they were killing it. To me, Kevin was "if you can't beat them, join them" type. In a way, he was more sensible in being able to recognize and accept Avalon's defeat. At the same time, there was no real excuse for him stealing the Avalon regalia and handing it over to its enemies -- that was a first-degree betrayal. Concerning his affair with Morgaine, it was another part that made me sick. The way it looked to me, Morgaine felt nothing but pity towards him and decided to sleep with him just to boost his self-esteem or something. In a way, she was sacrificing her body for a man she did not even love just to make him feel better about himself. Sort of letting him use her as antidepressant. Which seems to be another example of people in Mists having very little regard to female bodies. And the fact that Kevin accepted this "act of charity" makes him even more pathetic. I think that Kevin was believable, even though very unsimpathetic. There are quite a few losers like that in real life. I think that him becoming the Merlin had to do with the general degradation of Avalon. They simply did not have anything better. The same as Niniane became the High Priestess while having no Sight. This is not really on-topic, but has anyone seen the new Disney flick, _The Quest for Camelot_? According to commercials, it's about a "girl who wanted to be a knight". I wonder if it's in any way related to Arthurian theme. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 05:47:56 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA Re Re chocolate cake To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sorry Jessie, It took me so long to answer, I've lost your post. Again on the difference between Gwen and Morgause. Yes, Lancelet was Gwen's Turtle cake because she loved him or rather because he was the one person in her life with whom she'd established a deep personal bond. The sexual expression of that bond would have been a most natural, possibly healing, step. Perhaps if Gwen would have made a real connection with someone, she could have shrugged off some of the unnatural control of self she gave to religion. Morgause's Turtle cake was not any of her little play things. Whether or not they were the 10 most sexually innovative men in the land makes no difference. A meaningful sexual expression had nothing to do with expertise. ( Morgaine sure didn't have much good to say for Lancelet in that area.) It had to do with bonding. Unfortunately Morgause's Turtle cake was to wear the crown of all Britain, and power hungry people come off very poorly in novels. (also in life unless they can be shown to seek power not for itself but for some higher good for their people.) Maybe Morgause's perfunctory use of sex was used to show her lack of humanity, her unsuitability to wear the crown. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:54:20 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU One thing that has humored me in all of this thread of discussion is how we women today think in terms of a feminist-aware female in the 20th century applies their own realm of knowledge and existance to a time they never been to or can only experience through the historian eye, the social-historian eye, or through an author's eye, as portrayed in MZB's work here... I just finished reading Guinevere by Norma Lorre Goodrich, and although parts of it were hard to decipher, it gave me a perspective of how difficult it was to piece together the life of a women whom many say (historically) existed at one time over our human existance...unless an intact parchment falls into a prominent historian's lap in the immediate future all we have to base tales of speculation such as portrayed by MZB are the fragments, stone-carved monuments, and artifacts dated to be from that historical era. In the Goodrich book, Guinevere has many different names attributed to her person, as well as many connections to not only Scotland, but to Ireland, and Finland as well through folklore mythologies...One trouble with dealing with historical fragments and incorporating human qualities into a fictional work, is sometimes you have parameters within which to work in the fictional creative aspects you are prescribing to...that said, say if MZB had written of a female character in her work who was self-assured, and exemplified the essence of a "modern woman" or a "feminist-ideal," it would not have been true to the story MZB was creating, and would be out of place for where this particular creation was heading...now another work that I believe MZB had written where the female protagonist was a very strong self assured person to a degree in the time she was living in was the work Cassandra. There was more leeway with that novel due to the role of the female in those times, when dealing with priestesses, women had more of an opportunity to flourish as self-aware beings through their spiritual roles... Also, the Goodrich book is very well-researched, and gives various accounts of seeing Guinevere as a Pict Priestess, one who was annointed and barefoot, the sign of someone on the upper echelon of a religious servitude. Jo Ann At 02:26 PM 7/20/98 -0500, Marina wrote: >I still think that Nimue/Kevin story was extremely disgusting. The whole >concept of raising the girl in isolation just to sacrifice her body, and >in the end, her life for a political game seems to me pretty >unjustified, to put it mild. "Punishing" Kevin did not carry any >practical meaning in saving Avalon or make any difference in the >political situation. It was a simple, primitive, KGB-style political >revenge against a "dissident". Using a body of a 14-year-old girl for >that was IMHO sexual exploitation. > >It seems to me that Avalon priestesses were caught in what is called the >self-perpetuating circle of abuse. First, Vivian almost destroyed Morgaine by >making her screw her brother. Then Morgaine destroyed Nimue, also "for the >sake of a high cause". And each of them is being very self-righteous >about it: "I went through it, so you have to as well. That's life, >baby" or something pretty damn close. Just like those families where >parents rape their children who then grow up and rape their own children, >and so on, perpetually... > >Why is it that female sexuality always have to "serve" some "high >purpose"? How is standing in for "the land" (an object) in the inauguration >ceremony of a king is better than being married to a stranger as a free >supplement to your father's horses? In Kevin's cause, it was not even a >"marriage to the land", he was not a king, but a traitor. He would >probably die by himself couple years later, or get burned at a stake by >his new buddies-the priests. What was the point of sacrificing the >girl? Especially considering the fact that she was the only one who >could take over after Morgaine. They talked so much that there was >almost no one left to take over as the next High Priestess, and they simply >threw away their only hope. > >The main point of Christianity was also that "sex is not a plaything". >Avalon's position on it does not seem any better. Having sex only for >procreation, or only "to please the Goddess", either way is only a "sacred >duty" that women must surrender to, whether they like it or not. Why is it >that male sexuality is never used as a form of spiritual currency? > >>The freedom to treat great spiritual truths lightly doesn't seem to >> me to be much of a freedom. Morgause's sexual promiscuity was frowned upon >> because it involved no bond with the land or even with the men she chose, >> no bond at all. It was a plaything, and the religion did not see sex as a >> plaything. I don't find that attitude oppressive, I find it liberating >> to know we each possess this power. > >I think what robs a person of the potential for growth is when she kills >herself at the age of 14 after being used as a hooker by her primary >caretakers for the sake of their social intrigues. One cannot grow >when she's dead. Honestly, Nimue's story alone made me feel that Avalon >got what it deserved. Maybe it had been a great spiritual power at some >point, but by the time described in Mists it seemed to degrade into a bunch >of control freaks who did not want to relinquish their power over the >country and would stop at nothing to keep it. IMHO. > >Marina > >P.S.I really liked The Mists of Avalon. It's a beautiful tragic story (at >least most of the time). But if it was for real and accurately >represented historical facts, I would be glad that Avalon lost its power. >I think I would hate to live in a world ruled by psychics. It's bad enough >when they advise to the spouses of presidents... > >http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html > > "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society > is selling at the time." > Naomi Wolf > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Silent Running BBS, Riverside, California. > 2 MajorMUD games, 3 LORD games and 2 Tradewars games > WWW.Silent-Running.com / telnet Silent-Running.com > 909-343-2030 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:47:26 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA Re Re chocolate cake To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > Maybe Morgause's > perfunctory use of sex was used to show her lack of humanity, her > unsuitability to wear the crown. > Joyce Exactly my point. Margause's intention to freely choose her partners instead of being manipulated by religious authorities and her desire to see sex as source of pleasure instead of some sort of "religious rite" was used in this book as the proof of her general wickedness. This approach to female sexuality IMHO is not any better that the medieval Christian idea of "evilness" of female body unless it's used to serve a man -- her husband. In Avalon, it's supposed to be used to serve the Goddess instead. In either case, the woman's body is only a means of "serving" of some sort, while her own needs and desires are secondary and "evil". Even if we assume that for some people having sex is permitted only for some high cause, it does not mean they have a right to condemn those who choose otherwise. The very fact that in Mists, the "evil" Margause was the only one happy with her sexuality (as opposed to all the neurotic "good" women, Goddess-worshipping and Christian the same), IMHO promotes the idea that only "bad" women can enjoy their bodies. The "good" ones would always choose to sacrifice themselves for a man, Goddess, or political games. Which I find extremely misogynistic. Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:30:02 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's true that the world 15 hundred years ago was different from what it is now, at least in Britain. (Believe it or not, but there are plenty of places on Earth where things have not changed a bit!). However, concerning King Arthur and his family, no one really knows what things were like back then, or even whether these people actually existed. People who write Arthurian stories now do it from today's perspective, whether they like it or not. And since we know nothing about those times, how does one way to present "strong women" is more likely to be realistic than another? Every author simply make it the way _she_ want to see it. What is really funny, is the fact that we have a bunch of people that cite one 20th-century version of the story to disprove another group's point of view based on another 20th century version of the same story. With the variety of interpretations existing, everyone simply chooses the one that they like the most and uses it as "the way it actually happened". Concerning the validity of "judging the characters by today's standards", the fact is that the book was not written in the 5th century, either. It's a modern book and should be seen as such. I'm more than sure that a hundred years from now, all these conflicting versions of Arthurian world existing today will tell more about our own views and ideas than those of the ancient Britain. The Mists of Avalon is a late 20th century fantasy, with certain late 20th century attitudes towards women present all over it. And that's what we were mainly discussing, in my opinion. That's what we seemed to be arguing about, anyway. Finally, if certain things that are unacceptable today were OK in another time period, that does not make them any better. Time difference is basically a culture difference. There are modern-day societies that explain their treatment of women as "part of their tradition". For example, Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to leave home without covering themselves from head to toes and being accompanied by a male relative. They use the same excuse -- it's a different culture, so these things cannot be judged by the rules of another culture, namely the Western one. I'm not even talking about cruelties like genital mutilation that are also defended as "part of different culture". My point is, opression is oppression, and you have to either judge things by one certain standard, or excuse everything as part of "different time/place/culture". Unless one can explain why their ancient ancestors deserve more slack for their actions towards women than the modern-day medieval societies. Because if "they lived in a different time" is an excuse, you'll have to recognize the fact that Saudi Arabia still lives in a different time. And so does Afghanistan, China, and to some extent, American Bible Belt. Does that make their attitudes towards women OK? (E.g. the headline in my school paper concerning recent concert of Lilith Fair -- all women rock concert -- in Oklahoma City: "Lilith Fair is Aimed to Destroy Families". The editor wrote it. I think his latest feature was dedicated to "the practice of legally murdering babies"). In any case, I don't think we should restrict ourselves to what could be "realistic" for Arthurian society. It could be a feminist utopia, or a Communist country, for all we know. All "evidence" that we have of it are specualations of much later time that probably reflect the ideas of the time they were written as much as today's books reflect ours. What what I know, the first stories about King Arthur were born of the late-middle-ages fascination with the dying world of "knighthood". They had a lot more 15th century agenda in it than historical facts. It reminds me of reading all those Dumas stories as a kid -- Three Musketeers, etc., and being fascinated with all those duels, romantic adventures, and that kind of stuff that became my idea of living in 17th century. And then, I read Manon Lescaut, which was actually written at the time described by Dumas. It had absolutely nothing about duels, matters of honor, romantic adventures of nobility, or anything of that kind. Musketeers were mentioned briefly, just as some sort of cops, with nothing altogether heroic about them. And the whole book was about a sorry fate of a "fallen" woman and extensive philosophical musing on the subject of her life. That was the point when I realized that Three Musketeers had nothing to do with the time it described. It was all about 19th century and its hung-ups on romantic courtship. 17-century people were preoccupied with completely different things. It all comes down to the fact that no time that have passed can be adequately re-created as it really had been. The documents created by the culture itself are inaccurate because they are always affected by how the people wanted to see themselves rather than how they really were. The documents created outside the culture are not accurate because they are affected by the political struggles of the time between the culture discribed and the culture (often a competing one) of the person describing. And once it is gone, everyone starts assigning to the vanished culture whatever they see fit. So eventually it gets assigned some sort of "staple" phenomenon -- like the "knighthood" at King's Arthur's court -- that gets to be reinterpreted by generations to come. Another example I know from my own experience is the Soviet Union. No one really knows what life there was like. Because its own books and movies described it as all-positive "people's country" where everyone's happy, with no problems whatsoever. Western books and movies described it as The Evil Empire, with no one smiling, and full of idiotic stuff like snow in the summer and bears on the streets of Moscow. Even people who remember it now, remember it differently, depending on whether their own life got better or worse. In other words, once something is gone, it becomes fantasy material, one way or another, even seven years later, not 15 hundred. So we can pretty much assume anything about the "reality" of the Mists. No one assumption would be much further from reality than any other. Marina On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Jo Ann Rangel wrote: > One thing that has humored me in all of this thread of discussion is how we > women today think in terms of a feminist-aware female in the 20th century > applies their own realm of knowledge and existance to a time they never been > to or can only experience through the historian eye, the social-historian > eye, or through an author's eye, as portrayed in MZB's work here... ...... http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:39:48 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > The Mists of Avalon is a late 20th century fantasy, with certain late > 20th century attitudes towards women present all over it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. MOA was the perfect antidote for women yearning to see the possibility of _themselves_ as instruments of history. MOA was an extraordinary 'consciousness raising' tool and an extraordinary gift to women readers world wide. This can be said of MZBs work throughout the 60/70's I am here to give her a major roar of approval for what she has done so very well for so very long. And she can reject the labels I choose every day and twice on Sunday and I will still be here cheering. How many of us could write a book that would stand up without flaw to the kind of scrutiny we give the books read in the BDG? donna donnaneely@earthlink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:47:21 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jo Ann Rangel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hiya, Thanks for your very eloquent and well thought out reply. Will do the best I can to reflect as I reply: At 02:30 PM 7/21/98 -0500, you wrote: >It's true that the world 15 hundred years ago was different from what it >is now, at least in Britain. (Believe it or not, but there are plenty of >places on Earth where things have not changed a bit!). True, and there are good things that go with the bad as well, sometimes I wish there was a time where all we know is good, but then again... >However, concerning King Arthur and his family, no one really knows what things >were like back then, or even whether these people actually existed. >People who write Arthurian stories now do it from today's perspective, >whether they like it or not. And since we know nothing about those times, >how does one way to present "strong women" is more likely to be realistic >than another? Every author simply make it the way _she_ want to see it. This is true to a degree. No matter what details from history the end work of a writer is her perspective...what is taken into consideration are the parameters of what we know about the time we are writing about, if the intent is to portray that time to be a reflection of their perspective...for example, say I took on for a subject matter to write about, Mary Queen of Scots. And I wanted to use the parameters of the time she lived in in order to have a framework for the life that will be shown on the page to the reader...now, what if she thought of a way to get herself out of her predicament of facing a death sentence but that method involved elements that no matter how you spell it, show her as a character and as a woman, to basically sell her soul. If she at the end of the story survived her ordeal, and was left to rue about the decision she made, within the parameters of the story, what I would ask myself as the creator of the text, what does she want to do about this? The extentsion of the creator of the text to the character fo the text, something happens here that many people have tried to explain for hundreds of years...when the character drives the story, and the creator goes into the backround as the action proceeds, this is where the creative drive takes over, and the result is this version of the story the writer is attempting to tell. What fascinates me to no end, having chosen the writing profession (and thus a life of endless torment grin), is when I have the opportunity to read many versions of the same text. Someday when finances afford me I intend to look up a copy of some of Hemingway's drafts, to see the migration process of ideas from draft to final form...come to think of it, I wonder if there are succeeding different drafts of this particular book that may reflect a totally different outcome than the one that made the final form? >What is really funny, is the fact that we have a bunch of people that cite >one 20th-century version of the story to disprove another group's point of >view based on another 20th century version of the same story. With the >variety of interpretations existing, everyone simply chooses the one that >they like the most and uses it as "the way it actually happened". Just about a week ago, I got wind of this discussion goin on about whether or not Jesus has decendents and the implications of it for this century...and when I found the mailing list having this discussion there were two poles of perspective going on in the threads: one from those wanting to discuss historical proofs of the subject being discussed, and the other those driven by faith and belief to basically say YOU ARE WRONG AND WE ARE RIGHT SO END OF SUBJECT, giggle. What humored me so about this was when I was married and a church going Nazarene housewife, I must admit I was one of the latter group for seven years...what is so sad to me thinking about all this now, are how so many people in the world today cannot afford to see a situation from a different perspective for fear they may be shaken loose from their belief tree and left floating amidst some imaginary quagmire of damnation and certain brimstone proportions...in a perfect world yes, everyone would choose their own interpretation, and in that regard, I see oppression in different forms...fact is tradition is a powerful, powerful thing, from the perspective of a student, I was introduced to Stanley Fish, a literary critic, who challenged my way of belief in that to question where it is the text was originated from: the educational institution providing my education. Took me a good three weeks to understand what was being presented to me, the thought that what is being shown to me inside the classroom reflects an institutional POV and subsequently limits myself from entertaining another view outside of the institution, was quite shaking to me...I thought that because I was already questioning the authors text inside the classroom that this was what we were taught as children to "question authority." Now this authority challenges me to question the source of my educational fountain...was not an easy thing to take in believe me... >Concerning the validity of "judging the characters by today's standards", >the fact is that the book was not written in the 5th century, either. >It's a modern book and should be seen as such. I'm more than sure that a >hundred years from now, all these conflicting versions of Arthurian world >existing today will tell more about our own views and ideas than those of >the ancient Britain. The Mists of Avalon is a late 20th century fantasy, >with certain late 20th century attitudes towards women present all over >it. And that's what we were mainly discussing, in my opinion. That's what >we seemed to be arguing about, anyway. I see part of what you are saying. There are a few different schools of thought regarding works that are set in the past: that one may see it from today's perspective , or looking only at the text itself , and (had to pull out my notes hehe) the study of power in relationshships in literature , and the study of the human mind and/or its struggles with itself and the outside world . Perhaps we are not actually arguing, but seeing the text from totally different perspectives eh? Am enjoying this discussion immensely. >Finally, if certain things that are unacceptable today were OK in another >time period, that does not make them any better. Time difference is >basically a culture difference. There are modern-day societies that >explain their treatment of women as "part of their tradition". For >example, Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to leave home without >covering themselves from head to toes and being accompanied by a male >relative. They use the same excuse -- it's a different culture, so these >things cannot be judged by the rules of another culture, namely the >Western one. I'm not even talking about cruelties like genital >mutilation that are also defended as "part of different culture". > >My point is, opression is oppression, and you have to either judge >things by one certain standard, or excuse everything as part of >"different time/place/culture". Unless one can explain why their ancient >ancestors deserve more slack for their actions towards women than >the modern-day medieval societies. Because if "they lived in a different >time" is an excuse, you'll have to recognize the fact that Saudi Arabia still >lives in a different time. And so does Afghanistan, China, and to some >extent, American Bible Belt. Does that make their attitudes towards >women OK? (E.g. the headline in my school paper concerning recent >concert of Lilith Fair -- all women rock concert -- in Oklahoma City: >"Lilith Fair is Aimed to Destroy Families". The editor wrote it. I >think his latest feature was dedicated to "the practice of legally >murdering babies"). > >In any case, I don't think we should restrict ourselves to what could be >"realistic" for Arthurian society. It could be a feminist utopia, or a >Communist country, for all we know. All "evidence" that we have of it >are specualations of much later time that probably reflect the ideas of >the time they were written as much as today's books reflect ours. What >what I know, the first stories about King Arthur were born of the >late-middle-ages fascination with the dying world of "knighthood". They >had a lot more 15th century agenda in it than historical facts. > >It reminds me of reading all those Dumas stories as a kid -- Three >Musketeers, etc., and being fascinated with all those duels, romantic >adventures, and that kind of stuff that became my idea of living in 17th >century. And then, I read Manon Lescaut, which was actually written at the >time described by Dumas. It had absolutely nothing about duels, matters of >honor, romantic adventures of nobility, or anything of that kind. >Musketeers were mentioned briefly, just as some sort of cops, with nothing >altogether heroic about them. And the whole book was about a sorry fate >of a "fallen" woman and extensive philosophical musing on the subject of >her life. That was the point when I realized that Three Musketeers had >nothing to do with the time it described. It was all about 19th century >and its hung-ups on romantic courtship. 17-century people were >preoccupied with completely different things. > >It all comes down to the fact that no time that have passed can be >adequately re-created as it really had been. The documents created by >the culture itself are inaccurate because they are always affected by how >the people wanted to see themselves rather than how they really were. >The documents created outside the culture are not accurate because they >are affected by the political struggles of the time between the culture >discribed and the culture (often a competing one) of the person >describing. And once it is gone, everyone starts assigning to the >vanished culture whatever they see fit. So eventually it gets assigned >some sort of "staple" phenomenon -- like the "knighthood" at King's >Arthur's court -- that gets to be reinterpreted by generations to come. > >Another example I know from my own experience is the Soviet Union. No >one really knows what life there was like. Because its own books and >movies described it as all-positive "people's country" where >everyone's happy, with no problems whatsoever. Western books and movies >described it as The Evil Empire, with no one smiling, and full of idiotic >stuff like snow in the summer and bears on the streets of Moscow. Even >people who remember it now, remember it differently, depending on whether >their own life got better or worse. In other words, once something is >gone, it becomes fantasy material, one way or another, even seven years >later, not 15 hundred. So we can pretty much assume anything about the >"reality" of the Mists. No one assumption would be much further from >reality than any other. > >Marina Thank you for sharing these examples. In the thread of this discussion, I have learned that this is a very invaluable forum for exchanges of ideas. It makes me appreciate the value even more of having the freedom to express what we think and feel, where in other parts of the world, many do not. Jo Ann ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:39:52 -0700 Reply-To: cynthia1960@home.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Here's my delurk about Mists of Avalon... I re-read it recently, and I still found it enjoyable, but I had a very heightened sense of sadness about how most of the characters failed in their quests. I chalk up the failure to the Divine telling mortals that there's no way they can have everything happen the way they wish. I don't remember having this feeling quite as strongly when I read it first all these years ago. To be honest, I've got the other two books at home in the TBRead pile, and I haven't gotten around to them for years. I'm wondering if they will only heighten this mood that the first book brought on. I have enough angst in Real Life right now to wonder if I need to wallow in more fictional angst. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch....They wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." (from Matt Ruff's _Sewer, Gas & Electric_) Sharks Bite!!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:59:57 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Like many on this list I read MOA a long time ago and was bowled over by it. It answered some need of the time and was inspirational. I had always been fascinated by the Arthur legend, and this opened up an entirely different mindset. Reading it again, now, I approached it in a totally different manner and was not quite as impressed. Of course, there was a lot of blood under the bridge between readings. And I MEANT to be analytical, so I brought a different understanding to it and was not the same open mind from the first encounter. Despite that, it remains an important book in the sort of material we discuss here. Doubtless MZB would write it differently now. (Or maybe not. No matter.) It serves a purpose if it appeals to young women who need a nudge or an inspiration or the vision of a different path. Best Phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:01:45 -0700 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: eva Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG MOA, sexuality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU just wanted to throw in a few comments on the tail end of the whole "sexuality and mists of avalon" conversation...trying not to beat a dead horse. :) i'm another reader who was profoundly affected the first time i read MOA (sometime in high school). later readings have been less and less fulfilling, for many of the reasons that have already been mentioned: the negative portrayal of morgause, avalon's manipulation of nimue, morgaine's frustrating inability to MAKE A DECISION AND DO SOMETHING, ALREADY, the totally irritating characterization of gwenhwyfar, the purple prose, etc. kind of in parallel with the female-sexuality issue, though, i was struck by a comment lancelet made when he revealed his feelings for arthur to morgaine. morgaine tried to comfort him with [paraphrased] "the goddess forgives everything" and lancelet responded with "but this is a rejection of the goddess!" all along i had been intrigued by the idea of lancelet as a closet homosexual, and this quote disturbed me. it contributed to my negative view of avalon as a religion. then the whole issue was pretty much driven underground for the remainder of the book. i never felt like anything was resolved w.r.t. lancelet, except for some generic "he found peace in the end" yadda yadda. (though the same can be said for most of the other characters in the book...) eh, anyway. are there any other arthurian retellings that take a romantic view on the relationship between arthur & lancelot? it seems like a pretty obvious idea. MZB can't be the only one who's done it. delurking, -> eva ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:10:23 PDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Daniel Krashin Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: MOA To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Just a couple of random notes: 1) A recent retelling of the Arthur story that I really liked was Bernard Cornwell's trilogy. I've only read the first two so far, _Winter King_ and _Enemy of God_ and don't know if the 3rd is out yet. Cornwell is best known as a military novelist, and these books are told from the viewpoint of a minor Arthurian character, a slave raised in Merlin's household who later becomes one of Arthur's soldiers. It's not exactly fantasy, as the magic of Merlin, Nimue, etc. can be lagely explained by superior knowledge, trickery, etc. but the evocation of a pagan kingdom gradually being converted is remarkable. Especially the portrayal of Nimue as a raging, scarred woman is memorable, and the brutality of life after the Romans left is shown unflinchingly. The battle scenes are also well done, for fans of that sort of thing, but they are by no means the focus of the books. I recommend them highly. 2) About the word "pagan" -- IIRC, it comes from the Latin for "farmer." This is because farmers notoriously tended to worship in the christian church in public, but also, quietly, give offerings and honors to the old gods, who REALLY could make the crops grow. So paganism is the religion of farmers -- not such an insulting thing, after all. 3)For fans of unwinnable battles, there was a lengthy, and detailed argument running in New York Review of SF recently on whether Heinlein was a fascist -- lots of stuff on the representation of minorities in his fiction, too. It was enough to elimiate whatever embarassment I had of being a Heinlein fan; it might do the opposite for someone else. Yours, Dan Krashin *Now in Kansas, and it's not so bad* ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:25:01 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: N Clowder Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Belated post on Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU BDG: MISTS OF AVALON Sorry to be so late with this. I've enjoyed reading everyone else's posts... I don't know if it was the influence of the book discussion group, but I spent a lot of energy wondering what Bradley was about. What was her intention in writing this book? What is her personal take on the goddess religion? Why did she characterize the main players the way she did? The only thing I feel fairly certain of is that she does not like Christianity. I am amazed that a book that speaks so harshly of the Christian religion was a best seller in this country. It is not feminists or goddess-worshippers who drive books onto the best seller list. Does the "general reading public" not care about Christianity-bashing? Did they feel that the folks of Avalon got their comeuppance in the end? What did they see in the book? Several people in the BDG suggested that it was the book's soap-opera-ish qualities that made it widely appealing and I'm inclined to agree that that must be a part of its success. It wasn't until I was quite close to the end that I drew a conclusion about Bradley's motives that felt remotely satisfying. I think she posed herself two questions. First, how did it come about that Christianity supplanted the goddess religion on the isle of Britain? Why did the Mother's religion fall? She makes a reasonable presumption that this change in the balance of power also corresponded to a change in the power-balance between men and women. The second question is, what did the reign of Arthur look like from the women's point of view? What was their role in it? (Does the historical record suggest that Arthur's reign either coincided with, or even precipitated, the change in either of these balances: Christianity vs. the indigenous British religion; and men vs. women? I don't know.) Mists is a marriage of the two questions. An interest in both questions presupposes a sensitivity to women's history and women's point of view. I find it difficult to comprehend such an interest as uninspired by a feminist perspective, but I suppose it's possible that that was the case. Both questions, of course, can be answered from a non-feminist perspective. And there is no reason to think that an accurate, believable, truthful depiction of how these changes came about should be satisfying to feminists, that is, that it should fulfill our personal fantasies or our desire to see the goddess religion in a positive light. Mists explains the fall of the Mother's religion much as many historical events are explained: as the combined result of social forces and personal failing. We know, as readers, that the patriarchal conquest depicted in the book was (is?) a juggernaut that would sweep all else before it. Just as a matter of storytelling, how can Bradley make the inevitable outcome a matter of suspense? She shows us those points in time where the balance might have been swayed and history changed. She shows us not necessarily powerful people but people in the right place at the right time who could have changed the course of history. I knew all along what the ending would be, but damned if I didn't keep hoping that Viviane or Morgaine would pull it off and Bradley's book turn out to be an alternate history, one in which the goddess religion survives. I felt this way even on a re-reading! This surely is a credit to Bradley's talents as a storyteller. Bradley's sense of history, her sweep, her big vision, her powerful use of symbolism, and the inherent value and enduring interest of the central questions tackled by the book - these things go a long way toward making Mists a formidable and engaging work of fiction. I think where many of us in the BDG have found the work dissatisfying is in her answer to the question, why did the women of Avalon fail? Just what was the nature of their personal failing? Bradley's success with her characters is in depicting vivid, real people rather than bigger-than-life, mythological figures. They are interesting people, sharply drawn. But they are also characters at the service of the historical role (as well as the plot-role) they must play in the novel. Gwenhwyfar is admirably drawn to suit the role of the woman-behind-the-throne, finding a refuge from powerlessness in piousness and passive-aggressively revenging herself on the men who have made her what she is by wielding her piousness as power. But it is painful to spend 500 pages with this crimped spirit. Bradley shows me Morgaine as a young woman drafted to horrendous responsibility in a difficult time. Morgaine's abdication of power out of personal hurt is entirely understandable. The tragedy of her later attempts to reclaim that power and her awareness that she has accepted her responsibility too late - this is moving and believable. But the portrait of Morgaine as strong, noble, and tragic is almost lost beneath the deadening detail of her day-to-day vacillations. And of course, there is the ever-lasting, unrelieved, and predictable turmoil of everyone's sexual frustrations. For the most part, the personal failings which "led to" the fall of the goddess religion were sexual in nature. That's believable. I've asked myself why I kept expecting Morgaine to be "better" than this - to show more depth, to have a more complex set of personal failings. And also why I expected her to be able to rise above them more often than she did. Would I have had this expectation of her if I had encountered her in a mainstream novel, or in a fantasy which didn't place her in such a monumental role? I sense a certain mis-communication between myself, as reader, and Bradley - and I think I see it in some of the other posts to this list. I expect to find heroes in a fantasy. I want to find heroes among the priestesses of the Great Mother. I expect, in a fantasy confrontation between good and bad (and that's how I read the conflict of Christianity and the Mother's religion), to be set down at the end with some nugget of satisfaction in my hands, some sense that good has triumphed over evil. Bradley's book is more complex than this. To some extent it is historical, however little we know about the time, and she has an historical agenda to which she adheres. But something, for me, is not comfortable in this author-reader dialogue. I almost wonder if she didn't set out to some extent to confound my preconceptions about the nature of fantasy. I liked the characters and found them interesting (especially Gwenhwyfar, on this re-read), but they disappointed me for their failure to grow. Morgaine achieved some change of perspective after the failure of all her efforts, when she accepted that Avalon would indeed go into the mists. She seemed to find some peace with that and with herself. But, for me, that was the only growth I felt in any of these people. (At least, it's the only growth that I can remember, now that I'm done.) Arthur's betrayal of Avalon, his slow slide into denial of his oath and his responsibility (in order to keep domestic peace, no less!), was a well-drawn character change. I found it quite believable, but it was hardly growth. It's hard to spend 500 pages with people who are continually disappointed and sexually frustrated without seeing any of them get any kind of reward for their suffering - such as personal growth. It's arguably realistic, but Mists dished out a heavy dose of this realism. This is certainly not why I like to read fiction, especially fantasy. I think I would have trouble with these characters in any context, but against the august backdrop of Arthurian England and the tragedy of religious conquest, they are doubly disappointing. I honestly think if the book had been about a third shorter, if Bradley had used a more sparing hand with her detail, if she'd let these people keep just a LITTLE of the glamour of the mythic hero about them instead of showing them in interminable indecision and frustration - that Mists would be a better book. I think much of my strong reaction to Mists stems from the fact that I want or expect something from Bradley that she doesn't give. (This is my problem, not Bradley's. I recall having it in Firebrand and Forest House as well.) Thendara House was one of my first encounters with lesbians in fiction, let alone science fiction. As a lesbian, that was a wonderful experience for me. Bradley is clearly drawn to strong female figures, historical ones as well as ones she creates herself. She'll kick the establishment in the balls from time to time (as she does with Christianity in Mists.) I keep wanting her to be my spokeswoman. I keep expecting her to show me that she and I have a world-view in common, not just a liking for strong female characters. But that's not the way it is. And I want to know why. I've speculated endlessly about Bradley's character and her personal life, trying to understand why Mists isn't the book I want it to be. This isn't my usual reaction to a work of fiction. If she wasn't such a talented writer, if she didn't keep throwing me tidbits that mean so much to me, if she didn't ask interesting questions (regardless of how she answers them) - I think I'd quit reading her out of frustration. There's a lot more to say - Mists is a rich book. Thanks everyone for your posts and especially for the interesting discussion of sexuality in the book. Nell clowder@mail.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:32:03 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Belated post on Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 98-08-04 16:22:32 EDT, you write: << The only thing I feel fairly certain of is that she does not like Christianity. I am amazed that a book that speaks so harshly of the Christian religion was a best seller in this country. It is not feminists or goddess-worshippers who drive books onto the best seller list. Does the "general reading public" not care about Christianity-bashing? >> I see the Christianity she depicts in the book as a fantasy religion that exists in her fantasy world. It has nothing to do with the Christianity I believe in and practice. During the Dark Ages, it was twisted into a structure for imposing male power, but people always subvert what could have been good into something to serve their own interests. Even accepting her attack on this made-up Christianity as a straw-man argument, though, I couldn't take the side of the goddess religion, because it took more from its followers than it gave. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:29:38 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: N Clowder Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Belated post on Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Barbara's comment certainly helps me to understand how a Christian could read Mists and not go through the ceiling. And she's right that the goddess religion doesn't come off looking much better. Now I wonder if Bradley is a-religious - or- simply painted both religions as she saw them in the context of the historical time/plot of the book - or- I'm trying to infer way too much about the author from her text. Thanks, Nell clowder@mail.utexas.edu At 02:32 PM 8/6/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-08-04 16:22:32 EDT, you write: > ><< > The only thing I feel fairly certain of is that she does not like > Christianity. I am amazed that a book that speaks so harshly of the > Christian religion was a best seller in this country. It is not feminists > or goddess-worshippers who drive books onto the best seller list. Does the > "general reading public" not care about Christianity-bashing? >> > >I see the Christianity she depicts in the book as a fantasy religion that >exists in her fantasy world. It has nothing to do with the Christianity I >believe in and practice. During the Dark Ages, it was twisted into a structure >for imposing male power, but people always subvert what could have been good >into something to serve their own interests. Even accepting her attack on this >made-up Christianity as a straw-man argument, though, I couldn't take the side >of the goddess religion, because it took more from its followers than it gave. > >barbara ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 17:46:23 EDT Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Belated post on Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 8/6/98 9:29:26 PM, you wrote: << Now I wonder if Bradley is a-religious - or- simply painted both religions as she saw them in the context of the historical time/plot of the book - or- I'm trying to infer way too much about the author from her text.>> Several people have brought up the question of MZB's (or other authors) beliefs... curious point. I write points of view that are not my own all the time. I think most writers do. Surely what one writes is based on SOMETHING -- personal memory or the great mist -- but characters have minds of their own, in a sense, and they believe as they will. The writer shapes and informs, but does not necessarily hold dear to her heart what the characters say and do. This smacks of the sort of controversy that attaches to professional actors who take on lesbian/gay roles and then are immediately thought to be homosexual. MOA ain't autobiography. best phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:14:02 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Frances Green Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Belated post on Mists of Avalon To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sorry: this is one of those infuriatingly vague things, but I seem to recall reading an interview some years back in which MZB stated that she was a Christian. Apologies to all if this is a false memory. But I remember being surprised, having just read MOA!