Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:46:15 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: Snow Queen, online references To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU The Snow Queen by Joan D. Vinge Some on-line references REVIEWS: Amazon (6 reader reviews): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0445205296/readqqcombooks04A/002-9141 755-1119662 description in Italian: http://atsf.fx.ro/BOOKS/1997/Regina/default.htm "Award Winner's Review" short review: http://www.jade-mtn.com/AWR/Books%20in%20HTML/snowqueen.html discussion/reviews by readers: http://www.jade-mtn.com/AWR/Discussions/snowqueendisc.html MISC: Vinge bio (fan/short): http://www.catch22.com/SF/ARB/SFV/Vinge,Joan.html http://shell12.ba.best.com/~zzmaster/SF/vinge_joan_d.html Vinge links (I couldn't access these): moonbase.wwc.edu/~thomki/writers/vinge.html Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen": NB: this is the complete text; unacknowledgedly abridged texts are also posted on the internet http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Cottage/6847/snwq1.html [FULL STORY ON 7 PAGES: "ANDERSON"] Michael Whelan's cover art: www.glassonion.com/snowqn.htm ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:08:31 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen, online references To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 23-10-1998 2:46, Kathleen M. Friello said: > >description in Italian: >http://atsf.fx.ro/BOOKS/1997/Regina/default.htm It's rumenian, not Italian. Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:12:13 -0800 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: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's time to begin discussing our November book, Joan Vinge's "Snow Queen". I admit to only being 3/4 of the way through the book so far; the weather was just too fine this weekend to spend it all on Tiamat with Moon and the gang. I hope to finish it tonight. What did you think? I would describe Snow Queen, at least so far, as "woman-centric space opera." Do you agree? Comparing it to some of our earlier books, it's much harder to pin this one down -- you can't just say it's about gender, or about child abuse, or a re-telling of the story of Arthur et al. How would you describe what this book is about? What other books would you compare it with? Could it have been shorter without compromising the story or the characters? For those of you who've finished the book, does it close the story or are we left with the need to read the sequels? If you have read the sequels, how do they compare with this book? Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:18:33 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Elethiomel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 2-11-1998 19:12, Jennifer Krauel said: >Comparing it to some of our earlier books, it's much harder to pin this one >down -- you can't just say it's about gender, or about child abuse, or a >re-telling of the story of Arthur et al. How would you describe what this >book is about? What other books would you compare it with? I think ostensibly it's a retelling of the Snow Queen fable written by Hans Christian Andersen, a rather cruel story as all his are. The original story is also, curiously enough (since it was written in times when feminism was IIRC unheard of and by a man) about a resorceful young woman who saves a thoroughly passive male from a Bad Mother. The brigands and the fact that the young male plays with ice in the Snow Queen Castle are also there in Andersen's story. It would be interesting to compare the two text and see how Vinge read the fable and how much she added. I think, btw, that the underlaying structure of the fable is what makes The Snow Queen so superior to its sequel. Anna F. Dal Dan http://www.fantascienza.com/sfpeople/elethiomel Anna esta' en la linea ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:27:36 -0600 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: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Snow Queen was in fact the first book of the list selected for discussion that I read when BDG list was announced (the only one besides the Sparrow that existed in my university library). I loved it, and I read it in one evening. On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I would describe Snow Queen, at least so far, as "woman-centric space > opera." Do you agree? I agree that it's probably not a presentation of complicated ideas like Shadow Man, nor a complex literary creation like Black Wine. However, I think that as an adventure book it is, it's very, very good. I loved the concept of a woman who chooses her own path and follows it whatever it takes and no matter what anyone thinks. I think it's a book about an individual choice and determination to achive it despite the circumstances, even if no one else thinks it's the right one. By the way, I liked the original "Snow Queen", by Hans Christian Andersen (the guy who also wrote The Little Mermaid, by the way) the most of his books. I wonder why Disney never made an animated movie of that one. That fairy tale beats the Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and even the Little Mermaid (which originally ended very tragically) combined. Maybe it's being "too feminist" -- a guy abducted by an evil queen sitting there and waiting while his girlfriend goes though all kinds adventures to rescue him, basically, the "knight and the princess" in reverse -- made it ineligible for a screen version. Anyway, going back to Joan Vinge's interpretation. I loved the hero, Moon, her courage and the ability to get out from any situation. The episode when she keeps going towards the cave to become a cybil after her boyfriend flakes out, despite the fact that they had promised to "win or lose together" was one of my favorite. Maybe because it was so different from the traditional setup when a woman always follows her "beloved" in sickness and health and whatever idiotic decision he happens to make. At the same time, when she wants to get him back no amount of other people's lecturing on "why do you want this jerk after all he had done to you" she keeps fighting for it and wins again. Honestly, by the end of the book I myself kind of wished for her to choose someone else, like that patrician guy from another planet. But since she decided to stick with whom she wanted -- oh well. After all, male heroes on the quest for their beloved never focus on whether the object of the rescue effort is worth going through so much trouble, either. I quess women have a right to want whoever they please just as well. That what makes a love object an object, after all. One's love is what makes him worthy, even if as a person he's a total piece of something. It's about the right to make your own choice, be it "good" or "bad" in other people's eyes. And if you don't like it anymore, make another one because it's your decision, not because those around you say that "it's not good for you". It's the right to make your own mistakes and learn from them, you know. I've had plenty of friends getting furious with me for not living my life the way they wanted me to, "for my own good", so I found Moon's example pretty inspiring. > > Comparing it to some of our earlier books, it's much harder to pin this one > down -- you can't just say it's about gender, or about child abuse, or a > re-telling of the story of Arthur et al. How would you describe what this > book is about? IMHO, it's personal quest for love, power, and desire to make a difference in the lives of people around you. At least Moon, unlike Essa and Ea of Black Wine, took responsibility for the fate of her people and would not walk away from the conflict in the fear of "becoming like her enemies". She was a fighter, and probably one of the best images of a female hero I've ever seen. > Could it have been shorter without compromising the story or the characters? Maybe. But it won't be as much fun. > For those of you who've finished the book, does it close the story or are > we left with the need to read the sequels? I have not read the sequel, even though I've heard there is one, The Summer Queen. I don't know if I want to read it, since sequels have an unfortunate tendency to suck. The story is perfect as it is. Even though the battle of the planet for technological independence and the revival of the ancient system of informaitonal interchange that underlines the abilities of cybils could be interesting. By the way, I think that _Snow Queen_ is a very curious combination of science fiction and fantasy. To be honest, it took me almost the whole book to realize that the three-leaf sign of the cybils is the modern symbol of Biohazard. Another theme that I found very provoking was the idea of becoming immortal at the expense of infertility and killing intelligent beings. What would you all do if faced with this choice? For instance, if there was a way to become immortal without killing the creatures, would you to do that? Would you want to live -- and stay young -- forever? Why or why not? 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, 3 Nov 1998 14:19:12 -0500 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: Snow Queen (Long) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Well, this was my third go-round with *The Snow Queen*. I'm interested in what other people have to say because I can't figure out quite why this book has stuck with me. When I first read it back in college I found the characters unconvincing (except for BZ Gundhalinu, who was and remains my favorite), but having read it a couple more times, and having grown older in the intervening years :), I find that I am able to fill in the gaps with my own observations of people. This time I also found myself visualizing some scenes as if I were watching a movie, which is pretty unusual for me. In feminist terms it's a mixed bag (but stronger than I had thought). There are women aplenty and they are a varied lot: Moon, the Innocent, Good Woman; Arienrhod, the Cold, Ambitious Evil Woman; Jerusha, the Conflicted Career Woman; Fate, the Mystical, Wise Woman; Tor, the Everyday Shmoe Woman (hey, I'm amusing myself here!); Blodwed, the Selfish, Feral Girlchild with a Hidden Heart o'Gold; Elsevier, The Good Samaritan Woman (Mother Wannabe). They aren't this cut and dried, obviously. I enjoyed the nuances of the characters. Moon, for example, turns out to be more similar to her clone-mother than one would expect of a good vs. evil story. Even at the beginning we see that she is very serious about pursuing her own fate when she presses on through the sibyl choosing place, leaving Sparks behind. And this is not presented as a bad thing. In fact, it seems at the end of the book (and more so in the sequel, *The Summer Queen*) that Arienrhod's plan worked (except for some details, like the union of summer and winter clans and no more water of life...) I quite enjoyed the character of Jerusha. Her POV often has a sarcastic quality I can identify with. I actually laughed out loud at one scene where she receives a mysterious package and idly thinks to herself, "I hope it's a bomb." And I LOVED the scene where she easily disarms Starbuck and says, "An energy weapon should never be aimed at anything unless you're willing to see it blown apart." While pointing it at him. Heh heh. The whole subplot of her difficulties dealing with insubordination and resentment among her policemen really reminded me of the *Prime Suspect* series starring Helen Mirren. It was made very clear that she had to do twice as well as the men to even be tolerated by them. I could taste the frustration. Some things I didn't like: the Moon/Sparks romance. I imagine it's just me, but the thought of two children who have been best friends since birth having a sexual relationship makes me feel oogy. Too much like incest. And though it gives her the chance to go adventuring, I didn't like the fact that Moon's main goal throughout the novel is tracking down her lover. Something that struck me after our recent discussion is that this and all the works of Joan Vinge that I have read can be described as "hurt/comfort fiction" par excellence! (Mostly hurting and not much comforting, actually.) Is this complicated by the fact that the person being comforted is sometimes the main, POV character, as in the *Psion* series? Jennifer Krauel asked: > Could it have been shorter without compromising the story or the > characters? Yes, I think so, but I'm not sure what could be cut. *The Summer Queen* could DEFINITELY have been shorter. > For those of you who've finished the book, does it close the story or > are we left with the need to read the sequels? If you have read the > sequels, how do they compare with this book? I think the first book is pretty self-contained. The second book, *World's End*, is strangely disconnected from the other two and is very different in tone. It's told from Gundhalinu's point of view (I recall it as being in the first person, though I no longer have a copy to confirm it) and struck me as being a rewrite of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" in a science fictional setting. (Vinge even quotes from "Heart of Darkness" at the beginning of the book.) There was something I liked about it, but I don't think it went over well with critics or with most readers, which may explain why the third book, *The Summer Queen* encompasses much of its material and can be read as a straight sequel to the first book. *The Summer Queen* makes a quantum leap in length (to 950 pages) and in breadth (lots more characters and a much longer time frame). To me it seems bloated, but still somewhat interesting. In case anyone is interested, here are some links to versions of the fairy tale: Complete Hans Christian Andersen version in 7 parts: http://www.math.technion.ac.il/~rl/Andersen/snow_que.html A couple others: http://www.teelfamily.com/activities/snow/snowqueen.html -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Dave Matthews Band - Two Step "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:34:52 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: [*FSFFU*] Snow Queen Sequel To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU READ THE SEQUEL. Not only is it just as well written as The Snow Queen, but the Summer Queen clears up most of the mysteries that we are still left with at the end of the Snow Queen. And I won't ruin it by saying any more than that. > > Snow Queen was in fact the first book of the list selected for discussion > that I read when BDG list was announced (the only one besides the Sparrow > that existed in my university library). I loved it, and I read it in one > evening. > > On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Jennifer > Krauel wrote: > > > I would describe Snow Queen, at least so far, as "woman-centric space > > opera." Do you agree? > > I agree that it's probably not a presentation of complicated ideas like > Shadow Man, nor a complex literary creation like Black Wine. However, I > think that as an adventure book it is, it's very, very good. I loved the > concept of a woman who chooses her own path and follows it whatever it > takes and no matter what anyone thinks. I think it's a book about an > individual choice and determination to achive it despite the > circumstances, even if no one else thinks it's the right one. > > By the way, I liked the original "Snow Queen", by Hans Christian Andersen > (the guy who also wrote The Little Mermaid, by the way) the most of his > books. I wonder why Disney never made an animated movie of that one. > That fairy tale beats the Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and even the > Little Mermaid (which originally ended very tragically) combined. Maybe > it's being "too feminist" -- a guy abducted by an evil queen sitting there > and waiting while his girlfriend goes though all kinds adventures to > rescue him, basically, the "knight and the princess" in reverse -- made it > ineligible for a screen version. > > Anyway, going back to Joan Vinge's interpretation. I loved the hero, > Moon, her courage and the ability to get out from any situation. The > episode when she keeps going towards the cave to become a cybil > after her boyfriend flakes out, despite the fact that they had promised to > "win or lose together" was one of my favorite. Maybe because it was so > different from the traditional setup when a woman always follows her > "beloved" in sickness and health and whatever idiotic decision he happens > to make. At the same time, when she wants to get him back no amount of > other people's lecturing on "why do you want this jerk after all he had > done to you" she keeps fighting for it and wins again. Honestly, by the > end of the book I myself kind of wished for her to choose someone else, > like that patrician guy from another planet. But since she decided to > stick with whom she wanted -- oh well. After all, male heroes on the > quest for their beloved never focus on whether the object of the rescue > effort is worth going through so much trouble, either. I quess women have > a right to want whoever they please just as well. That what makes a love > object an object, after all. One's love is what makes him worthy, even if > as a person he's a total piece of something. > > It's about the right to make your own choice, be it "good" or "bad" in > other people's eyes. And if you don't like it anymore, make another one > because it's your decision, not because those around you say that "it's > not good for you". It's the right to make your own mistakes and learn > from them, you know. I've had plenty of friends getting furious with me > for not living my life the way they wanted me to, "for my own good", so I > found Moon's example pretty inspiring. > > > > > Comparing it to some of our earlier books, it's much harder to pin this one > > down -- you can't just say it's about gender, or about child abuse, or a > > re-telling of the story of Arthur et al. How would you describe what this > > book is about? > > IMHO, it's personal quest for love, power, and desire to make a difference > in the lives of people around you. At least Moon, unlike Essa and Ea of > Black Wine, took responsibility for the fate of her people and would not > walk away from the conflict in the fear of "becoming like her enemies". > She was a fighter, and probably one of the best images of a female hero > I've ever seen. > > > Could it have been shorter without compromising the story or the characters? > > Maybe. But it won't be as much fun. > > > For those of you who've finished the book, does it close the story or are > > we left with the need to read the sequels? > > I have not read the sequel, even though I've heard there is one, The > Summer Queen. I don't know if I want to read it, since sequels have an > unfortunate tendency to suck. The story is perfect as it is. Even though > the battle of the planet for technological independence and the revival of > the ancient system of informaitonal interchange that underlines the > abilities of cybils could be interesting. > > By the way, I think that _Snow Queen_ is a very curious combination of > science fiction and fantasy. To be honest, it took me almost the whole > book to realize that the three-leaf sign of the cybils is the > modern symbol of Biohazard. > > Another theme that I found very provoking was the idea of becoming > immortal at the expense of infertility and killing intelligent beings. > What would you all do if faced with this choice? For instance, if there > was a way to become immortal without killing the creatures, would you > to do that? Would you want to live -- and stay young -- forever? Why or > why not? > > 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, 3 Nov 1998 13:43:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stephanie Jackson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen (Long) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU [serious snip] > I think the first book is pretty self-contained. The second book, > *World's End*, is strangely disconnected from the other two and is very > different in tone. It's told from Gundhalinu's point of view (I recall > it as being in the first person, though I no longer have a copy to > confirm it) and struck me as being a rewrite of Conrad's "Heart of > Darkness" in a science fictional setting. (Vinge even quotes from "Heart > of Darkness" at the beginning of the book.) There was something I liked > about it, but I don't think it went over well with critics or with most > readers, which may explain why the third book, *The Summer Queen* > encompasses much of its material and can be read as a straight sequel to > the first book. *The Summer Queen* makes a quantum leap in length (to > 950 pages) and in breadth (lots more characters and a much longer time > frame). To me it seems bloated, but still somewhat interesting. > The /second/ book? I've never heard of this before. Is it still in print? It seems like the Summer Queen is the sequel... flow from one to the other is pretty equal. -Stephanie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:24:26 -0500 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: Snow Queen (Long) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 01:43 PM 11/3/98 -0800, Stephanie Jackson wrote: >The /second/ book? I've never heard of this before. Is it still in > print? It seems like the Summer Queen is the sequel... flow from one > to the other is pretty equal. It's available at Amazon.com for $3.99. You might also be able to order it from Maryelizabeth at Mysterious Galaxy (http://www.mystgalaxy.com). Or even get it at a used book store. You can see the gap in *The Summer Queen*, actually. When Gundhalinu gives Kullervo a brief explanation of how he came to World's End to look for his brothers, the journey across the desert with Ang and Spadrin, and his experiences with Song at Fire Lake... that is a summary of the second book. I think it's a little hard to understand his state of mind at this point in the novel (page 260 or thereabouts) without having read the second book, but it's not crucial. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Dave Matthews Band -- Two Step "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:33:39 -0800 Reply-To: lynnx@MC.NET Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Heather Law Organization: Interstellar Trading Company Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Snow Queen Sequel To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU An animated version of the Snow Queen, although not Disney, was released in the Fifties. I never saw it, but I did see the very rare soundtrack. Carol Mitchell ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:20:01 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I agree The Snow Queen isn't as beautifully literate as Black Wine, but wasn't it fun to read a novel that started at the beginning, had characters who interested you, continued through the middle and ended at the end? And in the meantime, it gave quite a bit to think about. Marina talked about Moon following Sparks even though he was perhaps not the right guy for her. She said, "One's love is what makes him worthy, even if as a person he's a total piece of something." Kind of a "Stand by your man" kind of thing. I didn't buy it. Seeing how self-centered, easily lead and petulant Sparks was, I can't believe he's really the kind of guy that's going to be much help to Moon in saving their world. In fact, I believe at one point Moon even says that maybe the Sibyl machine just used her need to rescue Sparks as a way to get her back to the planet to effect change. I really think without this kind of psychic push she wouldn't have felt such a need to join herself with him. He did after all murder the sacred mers. "Oh my man I love him so" shouldn't dismiss that kind of evil, not with someone as strong as Moon. I was hoping she'd end up with BZ. He was almost as strong as she and honorable. Or if she didn't end up with him, well, there's a whole planet. I don't see that she'd maintain this tie to Sparks. Guess I have to read the sequel. Speaking of honor. Did anyone think of the Kharemough as representing the Japanese with their emphasis on honor, ancestry and technology? A concern Janice had with the Moon/Sparks romance was that since they had been best friends since birth, it seemed too much like incest. I didn't have any problem with the natural sexuality between the two children. Didn't Margaret Mead say that the Samoans "practiced" having sex with each other as they were children? I agree. It would seem that most cultures would have found the relationship pretty incestuous since they had been raised together. But then there's Catherine and Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. Didn't they have that same childhood relationship, though not since babyhood? And for a relationship that really needed to be continued, how about Tor and Pollux? Weren't they perfect for each other? If Marge Piercy could do it in, what was that He She And It? Why couldn't Joan Vinge have a little inter-entity coupling here? Marina's commented about accepting infertility in order to achieve immortality. I guess that's how it would have to be done. They didn't have space flight, so their planet couldn't support beings that could both reproduce and live forever. Am I missing something? How did the High Officials from offworld manage to maintain their fertility? I have no doubt that people would kill intelligent beings in order to live forever, but even more basic than that question, to me, was why would anyone want to be immortal anyway? I should have thought that even Arienrhod was showing signs of boredom. Janice, what an apt comparison of Jerusha and Helen Mirren's Prime Suspect character, "the difficulties dealing with insubordination and resentment among her policemen...that she had to do twice as well as the men to even be tolerated by them." Now, if they make a movie, Helen has to be there. I very much enjoyed the book and just found the original Hans Christian Andersen Snow Queen in some books of children's stories my mother gave me, so I can't wait to read it. Oh, one more thing. I was reading the end of the book as I watched election coverage. It was nice to envision Newt Gingrich going down in that boat along with the Winter Queen. What a pity, not yet. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:58:44 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen (and Summer Queen) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Janice Dawley wrote: >Some things I didn't like: the Moon/Sparks romance. I imagine >it's just me, but the thought of two children who have been best >friends since birth having a sexual relationship makes me feel >oogy. Too much like incest. And though it gives her the chance >to go adventuring, I didn't like the fact that Moon's main goal >throughout the novel is tracking down her lover. The constant searching for a FAR-from-ideal lover annoyed me too...perhaps because it (i.e. an obsession with a love object who is not really worthy) struck a little too close to home. Your first love, especially if it's someone you've been close to from childhood, can be an extremely powerful blindspot--it can often turn into an obsession. Even very intelligent people can be "blind" when it comes to love. That's why the Sparks fixation rang true to me. I thought they were cousins (how distant I don't remember), which to my 20th-century western mind means incest. ----------------------------------------- ->SPOILER ALERT! (Summer Queen)<- What did you think of Airenrhod? Just how truly "evil" did she actually turn out in the book? Do you think she would have still exploited the mers for the water of life had she known that the sibyls are real and that the destruction of the mers would lead to a complete breakdown of the sibyl information network? I think her cloning herself and allowing her clone(s) to be raised as a Summer was a stroke of genius. It gets into the whole nature/nuture question. This move by Airenrhod, whether she realized it at the time or not, made it possible to unite the Summers and the Winters. Were this not to happen, Tiamat would continue to be exploited by the Hegemony, perhaps forever. The Tiamat-Hegemony relationship seemed to me very analogous to the relationship between 3rd world and 1st world nations today. What do you think? -Sharon Clark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:10:55 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen sequels--World's End To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Janice Dawley wrote: >I think the first book is pretty self-contained. >The second book, *World's End*, is strangely >disconnected from the other two and is very >different in tone. It's told from Gundhalinu's >point of view (I recall it as being in the first >person, though I no longer have a copy to confirm >it) and struck me as being a rewrite of Conrad's >"Heart of Darkness" in a science fictional setting. >(Vinge even quotes from "Heart of Darkness" at the >beginning of the book.) There was something I liked >about it, but I don't think it went over well with >critics or with most readers, which may explain why >the third book, *The Summer Queen* encompasses much >of its material and can be read as a straight sequel >to the first book. *The Summer Queen* makes a quantum >leap in length (to 950 pages) and in breadth >(lots more characters and a much longer time frame). >To me it seems bloated, but still somewhat interesting. I was hoping someone would mention "World's End" and how it compares/connects with "The Summer Queen". I have read both "The Snow Queen" and "The Summer Queen," but recently discovered that there was a book in between them (i.e. "World's End"). Is it worth reading this book? How much of it is encompassed in "The Summer Queen"? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:24:53 -0500 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: Snow Queen sequels--World's End To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sharon Clark wrote: > Is it worth reading [World's End]? [S P O I L E R S} Depends on what you like, I guess. If you think you'd enjoy getting inside BZ's head as he is humiliated and abused, infected by the sibyl virus and driven close to insane, all in a hellishly hot nightmare setting... go for it! Personally, I dug it. ;) > How much of it is encompassed in "The Summer Queen"? The events themselves are not present in *The Summer Queen*, except for his sibyl link with Moon, which we see from her side on pp. 102-105. BZ does recount them briefly to Kullervo, though. Plotwise, you're not missing anything. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Dave Matthews Band - Two Step "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:10:55 -0600 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > Marina talked about Moon following Sparks even though he was perhaps not the > right guy for her. She said, "One's love is what makes him worthy, even if > as a person he's a total piece of something." Kind of a "Stand by your man" > kind of thing. Well, in fact I meant something very different. Let's see if I can explain it. Have you noticed how in most traditional stories men risk their lives to win over / rescue a woman who's main and only feature is "divine beauty"? Often the hero never even met her, but heard of her need of rescuing and decided that he is in love with her. Even if the lady has any good qualities besides her looks, it is unknown to the reader, because it's kind of -- not the point. What's "important" is that the hero loves her and wants to save her from danger, and the story is actually about him, she's just an honorable excuse for his adventures. Well, I see Snow Queen as the same story the other way around. Since in the original, Anderson's Snow Queen, there was no way to allow a girl to go adventuring just because she felt like it, this "boyfriend in distress" provided a good excuse. Besides, it provided a good "romantic" underline to the story, which is not that bad. Even though I don't like romance novels by themselves, a good portion of sexual/emotional tension usually does good to any action (a good example of that is X-Files). Basically, what I am saying, Sparks here is not a "man to stand by", but simply a sex object, and therefore his value as a person is immaterial. It's kind of like sugar -- it does not have much nutritional value and is bad for your teeth, but it's sweet, and has a lot more pleasant taste than broccoli. Or chocolate cake -- even those who are obseesed with extra pounds devulge themselves every once in a while. What I'm trying to say -- we have a right to like what we like and want what we want, even if it's "bad for you". Moon wanted that jerk, for whatever reason, and was willing to take risks for that, and she did not need anyone's approval for her choice. That's her chocolate cake, and she did not need to justify it, IMHO. Taking away the person's right to make that choice, even if it's a wrong one, is one step towards stuff like arranged marriages. Besides, I think it might be fun to date someone clearly morally and intellectually inferior. That's why so many guys like bimbos. of course, you'd probably eventually get tired of being with a stupid person, but on the other side -- no one said it has to be forever. To be honest, I also kind of hoped that Moon would switch to that off-worlder guy. But she did not, and I can understand why. Apart from the kind of cynical stuff above, sometimes it's impossible to break a bond with a person you love even if he eventually develops very unattractive qualities. Whether it's good or bad -- it's life. It can be the same as family bonds: most people cannot stop loving their parents even if they are cruel and abusive or stop loving their children even if they turn out to be mass murderers. Even Unabomber's brother had his qualms about turning him in. I know, people always say "That's family, family is different!" But why is it different? At least one chooses the boyfriend, family is just whoever you're stuck with, whether you like them or not. If you can love you family members despite them being jerks and/or morons and are supposed to forgive their idiotic behavior, why judge a boyfriend differently? The same actions cannot be good or bad depending on who does them to you. In which case, how "standing by your man" would be any worse than "standing by your child/sibling/parent"? Assholes are assholes, if you forgive some of them, you've got to forgive the others as well. > Speaking of honor. Did anyone think of the Kharemough as representing the > Japanese with their emphasis on honor, ancestry and technology? Honestly, I did not like Kharemough that much. It seemed like an extremely snobbish, caste-based society. Besides, in my opinion, honor is something different from having to kill oneself at the sign of the first failure. I respect people's choice to die, but making it a social oblication is too much. This is why Moon's friend had to drop out of that society, too. > > A concern Janice had with the Moon/Sparks romance was that since they had > been best friends since birth, it seemed too much like incest. What about Ea and Annabel in the Black Wine? They did not just grow up together, they were actually half-sisters. The only difference is that Moon and Sparks are heterosexual. > Marina's commented about accepting infertility in order to achieve > immortality. I guess that's how it would have to be done. They didn't have > space flight, so their planet couldn't support beings that could both > reproduce and live forever. Am I missing something? How did the High > Officials from offworld manage to maintain their fertility? No kidding. Sparks was a son of one of those officials, with his grandfather looking younger than his dad because he had started on that immortality juice earlier. How did that happen? I have no doubt > that people would kill intelligent beings in order to live forever, but even > more basic than that question, to me, was why would anyone want to be > immortal anyway? I should have thought that even Arienrhod was showing > signs of boredom. Hell, I'd never get bored! Life, world, and people are just way too interesting to ever see it all and get tired. Even if you see the whole world, things change all the time, so you can as well can start seeing it all over again. You can write books, invent new machines, make scientific discoveries, learn new languages, create works of art, or just sit there and contemplate the meaning of life, for that matter. I'd love to live forever. Especially if you can have children by cloning . > I very much enjoyed the book and just found the original Hans Christian > Andersen Snow Queen in some books of children's stories my mother gave me, > so I can't wait to read it. It's funny that there is not one single Snow Queen movie in the US. Back in the Soviet Union, there were more screen versions of it than of Cinderella. The same as Shakespeare's Twelvth Night (his most feminist play, if you ask me) -- back home, I've seen different movie and TV versions of it about 20 times, while I've never even heard of a movie production of Romeo and Juliet. By the way, talking about Twelvth Night -- it has the similar idea of a woman in love with a guy (not a particularly bright one). This woman, Viola, dresses like a man and becomes his servant to be able to hang around the object of her affection. This guy, her boss, sends her to woo "the most beautiful woman in the city" he and everyone else has a crush on. Since Viola is a woman, or maybe because she is smart, she manages not only get through to the city beauty who normally would not see anyone, but gets her to fall in love with Viola herself, thinking that she's a man. Of course the situation is brough back to decent by the timely appearance of Viola's twin brother, who looks exactly alike. So that other woman marries him (dragging him to a church to get married the first time she sees him, thinking it's Viola -- women in this play are very far from being subtle about getting what they want), and Viola's master, after getting over the "betrayal of his servant" and such, meekly weds to Viola. I think that Twelvth Night is the best of Shakespeare's plays ever. the reason I mention it here, however, is the fact that it has exactly same setup -- a strong woman attracted to a jerk. And Count Orsino is a jerk. The only time he makes an extensive speech in a play he talks about women being uncapable to love, and that some woman's feelings towards him would be nothing comparing to his undying passion to that beauty he hardly ever met. And he is not very smart, either. Who in the right state of mind would send another man to woo a woman for him? In other words, this seems an on-going thread in culture -- strong women always choose weak men. Maybe because strong men are too afraid of competition. Or maybe because all men are raised to believe that the only possible setup is when the woman is less smart, strong, successful than the man, and strong men have the willpower to insist on domination while the weaker ones agree to yield the power. Whatever is the reason, for what I have seen it's how it works in real life, too. I used to believe that it is possible to find a person whom you could both love and respect and who would not try to put you down nor expect you to control him either. I don't think it's possible, though. Even in science fiction, the only remotely equal relationships are always gay. Oh well. Love is not a basic necessity, you can do fine without it. If I had a choice, I'd rather live forever :). Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:38:12 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I just read the Hans Christian Andersen Snow Queen, and it puts Sparks in a different light. In his story a wicked hobgoblin makes a mirror with the power of causing all that is good and beautiful to look poor and mean. The mirror falls from the sky and breaks into a hundred million pieces. If a piece got into a person's eye that person saw life perverted and had an eye only for that which is evil. If a splinter got into a person's heart his heart became a lump of ice. In the story Gerda and Kay (Moon and Sparks) are happy loving children who appreciate the beauty of nature. Kay gets a splinter of the mirror in his eye and one in his heart so he sees roses and Gerda as ugly and doesn't care that his rejection hurts Gerda's feelings. Kay is kidnapped by the Snow Queen. (During that scene he is so frightened that while he tries to say the Lord's Prayer he can only remember the multiplication table. Was that the original or was my book a later version? What a clever touch.) The Snow Queen kisses his forehead "It went to his very heart, which was already almost a frozen lump; but, a moment more, and he grew to like it. He no longer felt the cold that was around him." Gerda goes through several trials and finally finds Kay. (During the journey, by the way, she is helped by a reindeer whom Joan Vinge makes into BZ. This was even more creative than making him up from nothing.) She is also helped by a Finn woman who says, "I can give her no more power than she has already. Don't you see how men and animals are forced to serve her?" Several folk said that about Moon, didn't they? "Suddenly little Gerda stepped through the great portal of cutting winds into the palace. She repeated her evening prayer, and the winds dropped as if lulled to sleep. Then she entered the vast, empty, cold halls. There she beheld Kay and knew him at once. She flung her arms around his neck, held him fast and cried, 'Kay, sweet little Kay! Have I found you at last?' But he sat quite still, stiff and cold. Then little Gerda wept hot tears which fell on his breast, and they thawed his heart and melted away the bit of mirror there. He looked at her, and she sang (a little Christian song). At the sound of the song, Kay burst into tears; he wept so much that the last splinter was washed from his eye. Then he cried, 'Gerda, sweet little Gerda! Where have you been so long? And where have I been?' 'How cold it is here!' said he. 'How empty and cold!' And he clung fast to Gerda, who laughed and wept for joy." In order for me to think Sparks worth of Moon or able to help her in making a true change on the planet, there would have to be something to indicate that those slivers were melted from his heart or washed from his eyes. If his acquiescence to Arienrhod's evil plans had been due to some kind of drug or mechanical device induced hypnosis, then there would be a chance he could be "de-programmed" and become the kind of "helpmeet" that Moon needed. But he just seemed to go along with her out of loneliness and anger, kind an expression of personal weakness. So I don't know what would be used to make him strong except maybe a reconversion to the nature based religion, possibly mediated by the mers. But I thought the book made clear that that wasn't going to happen. Then again, he could have been compelled to do the Snow Queen's bidding by that same force that allows Moon to get what she needs from everyone. If so, maybe Moon's force could make him a good partner. She couldn't really force him into the spiritual centeredness that she had though. He was always farther away from that than she. No, I guess have have to stick with my original assessment. He's just not strong enough for her. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:16:50 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joe Sutliff Sanders Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 02:38 PM 11/4/98 -0800, you wrote: >"Suddenly little Gerda stepped through the great portal of cutting winds >into the palace. She repeated her evening prayer, and the winds dropped as >if lulled to sleep. Then she entered the vast, empty, cold halls. There >she beheld Kay and knew him at once. She flung her arms around his neck, >held him fast and cried, 'Kay, sweet little Kay! Have I found you at last?' >But he sat quite still, stiff and cold. Then little Gerda wept hot tears >which fell on his breast, and they thawed his heart and melted away the bit >of mirror there. He looked at her, and she sang (a little Christian song). >At the sound of the song, Kay burst into tears; he wept so much that the >last splinter was washed from his eye. Then he cried, 'Gerda, sweet little >Gerda! Where have you been so long? And where have I been?' 'How cold it >is here!' said he. 'How empty and cold!' And he clung fast to Gerda, who >laughed and wept for joy." Thanks for looking up the original on this. It helped me get more out of a book that really didn't do much for me. This passage reminded me of Anne Williams' idea of the Female Gothic. One of the key elements is that the heroine of Female Gothic is able to look inside another character and see the "real" person beneath the facade. Others have believed that the facade was all there was, but the Female Gothic heroine helps the character to redefine/recreate her/himself. That seems to work here, and, again, it helps me a bit with understanding why I should give a rip about the romantic relationship in _SQ_. Joe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:29:17 -0500 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 04:20 AM 11/4/98 -0800, you wrote: >Speaking of honor. Did anyone think of the Kharemough as representing the >Japanese with their emphasis on honor, ancestry and technology? With its caste system and naming conventions (initials as first names) Kharemough seemed modeled more on India. The physical appearance of the Kharemoughi fit with this too. But obviously there was other source material too. And Marina wrote: >Honestly, I did not like Kharemough that much. It sure would drive me crazy! Joyce Jones wrote: > A concern Janice had with the Moon/Sparks romance was that since they had > been best friends since birth, it seemed too much like incest. And Marina added: > What about Ea and Annabel in the Black Wine? They did not just grow up > together, they were actually half-sisters. The only difference is that > Moon and Sparks are heterosexual. Yes, that relationship bothered me a little too. But not as much since they were not "pledged" like Moon and Sparks were. For whatever reason an *exclusive* incestuous relationship bothers me more than a casual one. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I was pulling for the BZ-Moon connection and Sparks the self-involved brat was in the way. Monogamy. Ugh. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: R.E.M. -- Up "...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, 4 Nov 1998 23:48:15 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/4/98 3:18:31 PM Mountain Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: << Have you noticed how in most traditional stories men risk their lives to win over / rescue a woman who's main and only feature is "divine beauty"? Often the hero never even met her, but heard of her need of rescuing and decided that he is in love with her. Even if the lady has any good qualities besides her looks, it is unknown to the reader, because it's kind of -- not the point. >> -- well, the stories arose in an era of arranged marriages, when spouses were picked for you by your family. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:47:29 -0800 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 Snow Queen the fairy tale To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 02:38 PM 11/04/98 -0800, Joyce wrote: >I just read the Hans Christian Andersen Snow Queen, and it puts Sparks in a >different light. Thanks for the excellent synopsis, Joyce. How clueless I was to not pick up on the fairy tale link. In fact while I was reading the book I kept thinking it was called Winter Queen... The fairy tale synopsis also explains the whole reason for the teenage zookeeper interlude, which otherwise to me seemed rather pointless. That's one whole section and set of minor characters I thought could easily be cut out, but then I could have cut out the BZ character, and others of you seemed to like him, so what do I know. Joyce's point about the extent of Sparks' conversion upon Moon's return (crying out the mirror shard) seems a good one. I really felt ambivalent about the extent of Sparks' ability to overcome his stint on the dark side -- compare this to the slow ascent of the main character in Griffith's Slow River, where you really believe she's going to regain her sense of self-worth. On the other hand, the possibility for conflict makes me much more interested in reading Summer Queen. I also love Marina's point that his worthiness as an adventure trophy is irrelevant when you compare it to traditional stories. In this case the story is more interesting given the extra dimension added by Sparks interacting with the Dark Moon, but of course Moon doesn't know all that's going on. The amount of time in the actual story that she has to deal with the extent of the change is not that great, not great enough in my mind to overcome her single-minded fixation on his idealized memory. Again, I will be quite interested to see if she loses patience with him in the sequel. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:04:08 -0500 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: Snow Queen sequels--World's End To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU _World's End_ is a very different book than anything else of Vinge's I've read. It is much more internally focussed and sometimes extremely disturbing. I've read it a couple of times and found that it grows on me. E. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:54:58 MET Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Anthea Hartley Stanton Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen & incest Comments: cc: m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On 4 Nov 98, at 4:20, Joyce Jones wrote: > I agree The Snow Queen isn't as beautifully literate > as Black Wine, but wasn't it fun to read a novel that > started at the beginning, had characters who interested > you, continued through the middle and ended at the end? > And in the meantime, it gave quite a bit to think about. I found it the most _enjoyable_ of the BDG books thus far - not the least because it lack the 'preachy" tone of some of the others (especially _Shadow Man_ - my first and last Scott). I thought that the Moon/Sparks romance was Vinge's way of pointing up the strength and, paradoxically, the vulnerability of her main character. Here was Moon, clone of the all-powerful Snow Queen, putative saviour of the world, strong and confident, chasing after the petulant anti-hero, Sparks, who was not only weak but the brutal slaughterer of the mers. Had Sparks been a strong, dominant sort of man, it would have reduced Moon simply to a female sidekick. The fact that Moon loved Sparks, knowing he was grossly unworthy, in such an unquestioning way ('my lover right or wrong') added - for me - an interesting flawed dimension to a character who might otherwise have appeared too perfect. It made Moon into a much more sympathetic person. I can't see a relationship between BZ and Moon working as well. Moon was drawn back by the machinations of the Snow Queen acting through the weakness of a loser. In the way he was described, it would have struck me as unbelievable for BZ to have acted like Sparks and thus to have drawn Moon into the Snow Queen's ambit. > A concern Janice had with the Moon/Sparks romance was > that since they had been best friends since birth, > it seemed too much like incest....[snip]... > It would seem that most cultures would have found the > relationship pretty incestuous since they had been > raised together. Incest, certainly in our and other Western cultures, requires blood relationship (see Freud's _Totem and taboo_). I don't see how *unrelated* lifelong friends becoming lovers can possibly incestuous - however they're brought up. I do see the problem Vinge highlighted with 'youthful sexuality' although I don't see why it should be any worse than 'normal'. Many women - myself included - have found there are advantages to snagging one's future lover young: not only does it mean one avoids many teenage traumas and insecurities, but one can also be sure he doesn't have latent defects like a penchant for wearing women's underwear. AJ Anthea Hartley Stanton (ajhs@usa.net) _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:36:41 -0600 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 Snow Queen & incest To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > Many women - > myself included - have found there are advantages to snagging one's future > lover young: not only does it mean one avoids many teenage traumas and > insecurities, but one can also be sure he doesn't have latent defects like a > penchant for wearing women's underwear. Why would that be a defect :) ? Isn't it nice when a man follows his feminine side? Half-joking, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:47:08 -0500 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 Snow Queen & incest To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Anthea Hartley Stanton wrote: > Incest, certainly in our and other Western cultures, requires blood > relationship (see Freud's _Totem and taboo_). I don't see how > *unrelated* lifelong friends becoming lovers can possibly incestuous - > however they're brought up. I didn't say it *was* incest technically (though in fact Moon and Sparks are first cousins, which may or may not be incest depending on who you talk to); I said it *felt* like incest to me. Some anthropologists have theorized that there is a mechanism at work in the human mind that tends to discourage sexual relations between people who are raised together during a crucial age range, up to age 6, I think (Westermarck). There was some corroborative evidence gathered from children, unrelated by blood, who were raised in kibbutzim. I don't know what the current thinking about this is. I took an entire anthro course on the incest taboo but that was about ten years ago. Certainly incest does occur sometimes even when the conditions Westermarck outlined are met. -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: R.E.M. -- Up "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:22:56 -0500 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 Snow Queen & incest To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I wrote: > Moon and Sparks are first cousins, which may or may not be incest > depending on who you talk to Obviously, this is wrong. I should have written, "As far as they know, Moon and Sparks are first cousins." -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: R.E.M. -- Up "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:40:44 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: [*FSFFU*] SNOW QUEEN questions? / book access / list discussion elements To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU For anyone interested, I'm in touch with Joan Vinge, and if anyone had specific questions they would like her to address from SNOW QUEEN, I can forward them to her. At present she is hard at work on a new novel called TANGLED UP IN BLUE. It's set on Tiamat, in Carbuncle, during part of the time of THE SNOW QUEEN. ~~~~~~~ I had pretty free access to books during my youth. Including being allowed to check stuff out of the adult section of the library. The only censorship was exercised by my mother at the check out counter, when she would put back any items she didn't feel were appropriate [I still haven't read THE EXORCIST]. My favorite memories of fantastic reading include a wonderful series of fairy tale books broken down by country. It gave me a real feel for diversity and commonalities. I also was a quick reader, who was fortunate to have parents and teachers who worked together to take me out of my sixth grade English class for the two weeks they were supposed to be teaching us "speed reading" skills, when I was in tears after the first day and trying to use the techniques had actually *slowed down* my reading. So for the next 9 days I was allowed to sit in the hall and read my library books! Bliss! Sympathy to Caroline for her dreadful experience. :( ~~~~~~~ I think Jessie's point (paraphrased) about using text and ideas to reinforce one's arguements without using them to be dismissive of others' views is a good one. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:04:32 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] Gingrich joins the Winter Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It looks like Gingrich did take that long boat ride with the Winter Queen after all. And he says it gave him a feeling of peaceful serenity to do so. I guess they're mixing up that herb drink just right in the House this week. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:49:46 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gingrich joins the Winter Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 11:04 AM 11/8/98 -0800, you wrote: >It looks like Gingrich did take that long boat ride with the Winter Queen >after all. And he says it gave him a feeling of peaceful serenity to do so. >I guess they're mixing up that herb drink just right in the House this >week. > >Joyce Hehehehehe! Wish it was hemlock.... Sorry for the OT unpaid political snotty remark, but Joyce's comment was just too funny to pass up. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 13:25:39 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Karen Kirschling Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gingrich joins the Winter Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >It looks like Gingrich did take that long boat ride with the Winter Queen >after all. And he says it gave him a feeling of peaceful serenity to do so. >I guess they're mixing up that herb drink just right in the House this >week. > >Joyce :) yes, gingrich is a starbuck figure if i ever saw one; unfortunately, our winter queen, in the form of a republican-controlled congress, is still very much alive, and worry over who his replacement will be (dick armey?) is the only thing preventing me from putting on my festival mask and dancing in the streets. i do have to say, though, that this is the very first time in my voting life that i have been somewhat happy with the results of an election (i live in san francisco, ca). as the cold, rainy season begins i am hoping that summer is finally on its way. k.k. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 15:08:55 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Karen Kirschling Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG snow queen (on-topic this time) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU don't know how much i can add to the discussion, but i guess that this book almost qualifies for me as a revisited childhood reading experience. it came out around the time i started high school, and i have been rereading the same paperback, considerably browner with age. i remember being dazzled by the scope, the rich detail (very visual), the cycles of capture and escape, corruption and redemption, the diversity, strength and imperfection of the characters. i am amazed that i did not grasp how faithful the novel was to the original andersen story, which had been a childhood favorite of mine. nor was i politically evolved enough to see the "first world - third world" parallels, although the class conflicts were obvious. on rereading, my first thought was that i would definitely describe it as a feminist space opera. so many of the characters could be rewrites or updates of those i knew from other sf/f, movies, tv - sparks the restless, corruptible innocent; arienrhod the ruthless ice queen; jerusha the tough daddy's girl turned embattled strong woman, etc. perhaps the only difference here is that the strongest characters, almost without exception, are women. moon and jerusha are definitely role-model material - not perfect, but they are strong and determined, and they keep their integrity. my 2nd impression was annoyance with her writing style; she had a tendency to "tell" rather than "show" where a character's thoughts, feelings and motives were concerned, so that future twists of plot and character were often much too obvious (although maybe this was just my own memory kicking in). lest you think this is an entirely negative review, however, by the time i was halfway through it either her writing voice strengthened or the story took over, and i couldn't put it down. another thing i noticed about her writing style, and this is not a bad thing, is that she seemed to enjoy her tough-talking city dwelling characters the most (e.g. jerusha, tor, herne) and this gave the parts of the book a very american, hard-boiled flavor. part traditional space opera, part noir flick. interesting. re: the sequels, i read world's end and gave it away soon afterwards. the main thing i remember about it was that i found it hard to take all the abuse she meted out to bz, who had been one of my favorite characters (hadn't he gotten enough in the 1st book?). too much "hurt" without "comfort", i guess. i read the summer queen just a few years ago and loved it. without the traditional fairytale framework, the plotting and characters seemed less stock, more inventive and contemporary in their problems and concerns. i had just begun reading sf again after a long absence, and it was like a breath of fresh air. i didn't mind the length or the sprawl. sorry for being so long. take care, k.k. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:02:03 -0500 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: SNOW QUEEN questions? To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 08:40 AM 11/8/98 -0800, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: >For anyone interested, I'm in touch with Joan Vinge, and if anyone had >specific questions they would like her to address from SNOW QUEEN, I can >forward them to her. At present she is hard at work on a new novel called >TANGLED UP IN BLUE. It's set on Tiamat, in Carbuncle, during part of the >time of THE SNOW QUEEN. Ooh, ooh! I'm really interested in her approach to characterization in her novels. How much does she map out her plots ahead of time and how much does she allow herself to be "led" by her developing characters? I ask because for most of *The Snow Queen* there is no hint of the major role Gundhalinu will play towards the end, and none at all of how his own story will come to overshadow Moon's in the following two books. It seemed that she became more intrigued by him as she continued writing and decided to try him out in different environments. Since we started discussing the books I've been pondering why I like his character so much. I think it has to do with his dual role as object/subject. As a heterosexual woman with a very butch manner I've always felt a combination of identification with and desire for men (I once thought of it as being a homosexual man in a woman's body, but was ultimately unsatisfied with that idea as it denies the importance of my co-existing identication as a woman). So I've found that I enjoy depictions of men that allow me to feel this dual attraction/identification. Gundhalinu is one of those characters for me. Another was, believe it or not, Keanu Reeves in the movie *Speed*. It must be indicative of the power differential in modern society that it's a lot more common for women to write these kinds of roles than it is for men. Very few men I have met have had any interest in fully understanding what it means to be trapped in the female gender role, to see things from the other side. And some attempts (as in the novels of Tom Robbins) come across to me as being very WRONG. Of course, it could be that Gundhalinu is completely unconvincing to male readers. I once exchanged email with Lawrence Watt-Evans (a fantasy author) about M.J. Engh's *Arslan* and he maintained that the character of Hunt Morgan was obviously written by a woman because his sexuality was *all wrong*. (I think this says more about how narrow Watt-Evans's idea of male sexuality is than about Engh's biases, especially since Samuel Delany and Orson Scott Card loved the novel.) Thoughts, anyone? ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: R.E.M. -- Up "...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: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 18:38:23 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Gingrich joins the Winter Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > It looks like Gingrich did take that long boat ride with the Winter Queen > after all. And he says it gave him a feeling of peaceful serenity to do so. > I guess they're mixing up that herb drink just right in the House this > week. By the way -- good job at the elections, those of you who are US citizens. I thought we were going to end up with a 100% conservative Congress, the way things were going lately according to TV. 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, 8 Nov 1998 22:08:39 EST 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: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/3/98 10:38:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: << Would you want to live -- and stay young -- forever? Why or why not? >> Not on this planet! Some days my greatest comfort is the knowledge that no one lives forever! Actually, we are immortal already. Our souls and bodies will be reunited, and we'll exist forever in a much more enjoyable plane of existence. Some of you don't believe that, but I do, so that's why I wouldn't want to stay here, taking up a place someone else could use. To see a chilling portrayal of immortality, read _Gulliver's Travels_--the part about the floating islands. barbara ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:51:53 -0800 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 snow queen (on-topic this time) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 03:08 PM 11/08/98 -0800, Karen wrote: > >another thing i noticed about her writing style, and this is not a bad >thing, is that she seemed to enjoy her tough-talking city dwelling >characters the most (e.g. jerusha, tor, herne) and this gave the parts >of the book a very american, hard-boiled flavor. part traditional space >opera, part noir flick. interesting. Yes, now that you mention it, it's almost as if those three characters existed in a different story. Were there analogues for them in the Snow Queen fairy tale? If not, perhaps that's it. It's as if she really liked those characters the best, and gave them all kinds of complex motivations and interesting dialog, even though some of them were quite irrelevant to the main story. Makes me wonder how Jerusha will fit into Summer Queen, since I haven't read it yet. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:45:26 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG snow queen (on-topic this time) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 09:27 PM 11/9/98 CST, Jennifer wrote: >At 03:08 PM 11/08/98 -0800, Karen wrote: >> >>another thing i noticed about her writing style, and this is not a bad >>thing, is that she seemed to enjoy her tough-talking city dwelling >>characters the most (e.g. jerusha, tor, herne) and this gave the parts >>of the book a very american, hard-boiled flavor. part traditional space >>opera, part noir flick. interesting. > > >Yes, now that you mention it, it's almost as if those three characters >existed in a different story. It's probably been five years since I last read this book, and it is not holding up well. BZ just arrested Moon and I don't know how I am ever going to get through the end of this book. I am completely distracted by Herne. Please, whoever has the pipeline to Vinge: what was she thinking when she created this character, and how does he fit into the Snow Queen? Herne is the name of the Stag King, the dying and reborn Consort of the Goddess. The (admittedly dubious) book I have on Herne identifies him as Herne/Pan, which is an extremely interesting idea when you consider that Sparks choses the flute as his weapon. Herne is the predecessor of the Celtic God Cerennu (sp). The challenge is right out of the Golden Bough (and I seem to remember the death and the renewal of the Stag King in the Mists of Avalon). Whatever possessed Vinge to marry this myth to the Snow Queen? And how does it fit into Tiamat? Starbuck has to be an outworlder, but is this an outworlder myth laid over Tiamat culture? Is this Winter mythology? There is no given Son/Consort in the Summers' mythology. And while I am complaining, there is no grounding for this huge potlatch ceremony that dumps Winter, its rulers, and all its goods into the sea. I feel like we should have seen something along these lines when Moon gave up her old life to become a sibyl or when Sparks left to go to Carbuncle--this shedding of the old life, this detachment from possessions. And would somebody do me a favor and look up the mythological reference for "Tiamat" and tell me how THAT relates to the Snow Queen. Several people have commented on Sparks's passivity, but I think to paraphrase Jessica Rabbit, "he's not passive, he's just written that way." He doesn't sit on the beach and become a bum when Moon leaves; he picks himself up, and he goes off to find his heritage. He resists Arienrhod until Moon seems hopelessly lost. He figures out the offworld technology. He figures out how the Hall of Winds works; he challenges Herne and picks the right weapon--he doesn't have the killer instinct and Arienrhod cheats at the end--but he is actively going about his business. He is depressed. Almost everybody in the book is depressed, struggling against this fin de siecle malaise (lit teachers, have mercy on me), the end of Winter and the closing of the Gate. Much of the "story" happens off stage. For example, we only see Sparks'first mer hunt in flashback. We never get his impressions--the blasphemy, the thrashing mers, the bodies--up close and personal. And while I am mentioning the mers--are there any characters in this book more passive, more hapless, more lambs-to-the-slaughter than the mers? I'm sorry. They fill me with rage. They are supposed to be intelligent. In a MILLENIUM, couldn't some of the less esthetically refined mers leave off with their singing and their dancing and said, "Knock it off with the hunting"? Maybe I'm guilty of speciesism here, but it seems to me that one sign of intelligence should be the ability to organize your environment, to recognize your enemies and defend yourself. At the very least, to protest your own destruction in the face of your enemies. I'm really raging against God with this last paragraph. If whales are REALLY an intelligent species, why don't they blockade harbors and sing "Give pods a chance'? Why don't dolphins abduct sufers and make them learn to jump through hoops? Why don't they hijack Carnival Cruise ships and demand to speak to Kathy Lee? God laughs at my childish presumptions... Well, I've strayed a little bit off topic. Don't hurt me too much... Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 07:24:17 -0700 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 snow queen (on-topic this time) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > >another thing i noticed about her writing style, and this is not a bad > >thing, is that she seemed to enjoy her tough-talking city dwelling > >characters the most (e.g. jerusha, tor, herne) and this gave the parts > >of the book a very american, hard-boiled flavor. part traditional space > >opera, part noir flick. interesting. > > > Yes, now that you mention it, it's almost as if those three characters > existed in a different story. Were there analogues for them in the Snow > Queen fairy tale? Remember the Little Robber Girl? I always liked her better than the other protagonists.> Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:36:20 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG snow queen (on-topic this time) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/9/98 10:37:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, hathor@FLINK.COM writes: << God laughs at my childish presumptions... >> Nah. She likes it. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:26:54 -0800 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) If mers were REALLY intelligent... To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 12:45 AM 11/10/98 -0600, Rebecca wrote a bunch of stuff I'm deleting except this part: >I'm really raging against God with this last paragraph. If whales are >REALLY an intelligent species, why don't they blockade harbors and sing >"Give pods a chance'? Why don't dolphins abduct sufers and make them learn >to jump through hoops? Why don't they hijack Carnival Cruise ships and >demand to speak to Kathy Lee? The last time I went to see a "sea world"-style show, you know the kind with the dancing dolphins, I survived by fantasizing just this kind of thing. Only it seemed to me that the special thing that humans have is opposable thumbs. So the exhibit showcasing humans would have someone come out of a cage, tie a knot in a string and then untie it (to wild applause), and get a hot dog or something as a treat then be forced back into the cage until the next showing. While reading Snow Queen I just imagined mers as dolphins. The "hounds" were much more interesting, I thought, and it was really a nice touch to have one of the "good" alien characters be of the same species. On a related note, did anyone else guess the truth about the mers and the location of "deep thought" - oh sorry, wrong story, I mean the ancient super computer? I didn't, but I loved the way that tied so many elements of the story together, and it seemed so obvious after the fact that I felt a little dense to not have figured it out myself. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 07:41:06 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Clark Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen ->Tiamat To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Rebecca wrote: >And would somebody do me a favor and >look up the mythological reference for >"Tiamat" and tell me how THAT relates >to the Snow Queen. Rebecca: Here's the entry for the goddess "Tiamat" in Jessica Amanda Salmonson's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMAZONS: WOMEN WARRIORS FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE MODERN ERA: "Tiamat": Ceto in Greece, "Rahab" to the Hebrews. In one of the oldest surviving religious texts, ENUMA ELISH (WHEN ON HIGH) of Babylonia, about the second millennium B.C., the Dragon-goddess Tiamat overthrows the assembly of gods. They afterward elect a new, young god as their hero: When Tiamat heard the challenge She became as one possessed; She became beserk She recited spells While the gods of battle polished their steel. Then joined Tiamat and Marduck, the young god. They strove in single combat, locked in battle. This is essentially a myth of the overthrow of the Mother-goddess and the rise of patriarchal rule, evoking an earlier time of women's rule. In other ancient texts, including the Torah, the original Creatrix is likened to Chaos, whose voice called forth the world, and the patriarchal god wrestles her into submission in order to establish his rule over the cosmos. See "Eurynome" for a parallel goddess. [Heidel] --Sharon Clark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 04:02:07 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Rebecca wrote: >At 09:27 PM 11/9/98 CST, Jennifer wrote: >>At 03:08 PM 11/08/98 -0800, Karen wrote: >Herne is the name of the Stag King, the dying and reborn Consort of the >Goddess. The (admittedly dubious) book I have on Herne identifies him as >Herne/Pan, which is an extremely interesting idea when you consider that >Sparks choses the flute as his weapon. Herne is the predecessor of the >Celtic God Cerennu (sp). The challenge is right out of the Golden Bough >(and I seem to remember the death and the renewal of the Stag King in the >Mists of Avalon). Whatever possessed Vinge to marry this myth to the Snow >Queen? Great analysis. Whoever knows Vinge, is she involved in Goddess oriented religion herself? It seemed that was behind her nature-Sea worshiping Summers. >And how does it fit into Tiamat? Starbuck has to be an outworlder, but is >this an outworlder myth laid over Tiamat culture? Is this Winter >mythology? There is no given Son/Consort in the Summers' mythology. I think the book showed that the offworlders did their best to subvert whatever mythology the Winters might have originally had in order to use the Winters to get the water of life. The wanted to insert one of their own to lead the hunt for the mers because maybe even Winters wouldn't hunt them on their own. >And while I am complaining, there is no grounding for this huge potlatch >ceremony that dumps Winter, its rulers, and all its goods into the sea. I loved this idea. Of course the offworlders didn't want Summers figuring out how to use or produce technology whithout the offworlders interference, so I'm sure they helped to emphasize the Winter-technology-loving-Summer-technology-hating dichotomy. The fact that this enormous transfer of power could be made so non-violently, just by sacrificing a hated ruler and her consort kind of had a "Lottery" flair to it. What else but a powerful myth could have induced the Winters to give up their power, homes and possessions to Summer's rule? >And while I am mentioning the mers--are there any characters in this book >more passive, more hapless, more lambs-to-the-slaughter than the mers? I'm >sorry. They fill me with rage. They are supposed to be intelligent. In a >MILLENIUM, couldn't some of the less esthetically refined mers leave off >with their singing and their dancing and said, "Knock it off with the >hunting"? Maybe I'm guilty of speciesism here, but it seems to me that one >sign of intelligence should be the ability to organize your environment, to >recognize your enemies and defend yourself. At the very least, to protest >your own destruction in the face of your enemies. > >I'm really raging against God with this last paragraph. If whales are >REALLY an intelligent species, why don't they blockade harbors and sing >"Give pods a chance'? Why don't dolphins abduct sufers and make them learn >to jump through hoops? Why don't they hijack Carnival Cruise ships and >demand to speak to Kathy Lee? >>Rebecca You put that so well, Rebecca. I too wonder why, if dolphins and whales are supposed to be so intelligent they allow us complete domination over them. But they do, don't they, maybe for the same reason as the mers, whatever that might be. I still can't understand why anyone would want immortality, but the mers give some kind of understanding of what it would be like. Marina talked about all the things she could learn and do. Well, after a while I would think learning and doing new things could get just as boring as buying new things. Eternity is an awful long time after all. But the mers seemed to have achieved nirvana. The had complete enjoyment of every moment of their existence, whether it lasted a minute or an eternity. They lived completely in the present. Maybe the concept of death and slaughter meant nothing to them. They just were, they expected nothing else. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 13:34:23 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Barbara R. Hume wrote: > Actually, we are immortal already. Our souls and bodies will be reunited, and > we'll exist forever in a much more enjoyable plane of existence. Some of you > don't believe that, but I do, so that's why I wouldn't want to stay here, > taking up a place someone else could use. I wish I had the faith to understand death as specifically as you do. But I do have a similar spiritual inkling of what you put forth here. I thought this issue of immortality was really explored in many interesting ways in the book. In terms of the Snow Queen, immortality was seen as a spiritually bankrupt project, contrasted with the mer's natural immortality and their spiritual mystery. There was a great sentence about this but I can't find it. It said something like there is beauty in impermanence-- beauty in "a flower, a life." I wouldn't want to live forever, but then I definitely have a sense of something greater with a plan, and living forever would be usurping that plan. I also like the way Barbara put it-- not wanting to stay and take up space someone else could use. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:56:11 EST 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >If whales are REALLY an intelligent species, why don't they blockade harbors and sing "Give pods a chance'? Why don't dolphins abduct sufers and make them learn to jump through hoops? Why don't they hijack Carnival Cruise ships and demand to speak to Kathy Lee? >>Rebecca >You put that so well, Rebecca. I too wonder why, if dolphins and whales are supposed to be so intelligent they allow us complete domination over them.. < -- Joyce 1) Decades of cetacean research tends to prove that dolphins and some whales are "intelligent" in ways humans can understand. We may not understand HOW they think but THAT they "think" seems true. Interesting that some species are matriarchal societies. 2) Especially to people on this list, seems odd we wouldn't accept that there might be a non-human "race" with their own agenda, culture, and a basically benign attitude towards humans. No one has figured out why some dolphins seem to like us and some whales are quite tolerant towards people. IMHO we may be missing something if we assign such behavior to stupidity. 3) Don't think we can say these creatures "allow" us to dominate them. In the days of open-boat whaling, the whales fought back. Pretty hard to do against big catcher boats and harpoons fitted with explosive grenades shot at a distance, or, as the Russians recently used, hundreds of rounds of machine gun fire. Satellites can track them (and do), sonar, radar etc are employed by the whalers. Fatal net entangements and collisions with tankers are not a mark of submission. 4) Why is violence a mark of "intelligence"? I rather liked the mers. A different but vaguely familiar species with a different outlook. Human societies with a belief in reincarnation, or those who think it might someday be possible to preserve a mind in cyberspace once the body has decayed, are postulating a kind of live-forever idea. I loved the idea of a dolphin or a whale demanding to see Kathy Lee. Wouldn't that be fun! Think it would make the 6 o'clock news? lightly, lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:11:50 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Phoebe Wray wrote: > 2) Especially to people on this list, seems odd we wouldn't accept that there > might be a non-human "race" with their own agenda, culture, and a basically > benign attitude towards humans. No one has figured out why some dolphins seem > to like us and some whales are quite tolerant towards people. IMHO we may be > missing something if we assign such behavior to stupidity. > 3) Don't think we can say these creatures "allow" us to dominate them. In > the days of open-boat whaling, the whales fought back. It's interesting, in Moby Dick (one of my favorite books) you get this macho sense of the hunt-- and a sense of whales as intellingent monsters-- totally different than then New Age vision of them as benign creatures. But there is also a great deal of pathos in the book. I like the way you put this idea of the mer'separate culture. I really liked the mers, in fact they made the book for me. I think their presence as spiritual guardians of the sybil machine would make us take a step back as readers. Instead of comparing their motivations to human's, it made me wonder what kind of motivations they had and how that made them vulnerable to slaughter because they were not thinking on human/violent terms. I'll leave off on this before I start into martyrdom, etc. But I was wondering if anybody's read any of the writing on dolphins by that drug scientist -- Argh-- why can't I think of his name? That (terrible) movie, Altered States, was based on his work. Does anyone know what I'm talking about who could help me out here? --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 08:23:25 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU*] "Tiamat" reference To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >From Barbara Walker's _The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets_, a 2 page entry. Basic information: Tiamat is the Sumero-Babylonian "Goddess Mother" "from whose formless body the universe was born at creation....Babylonnians later claimed their municipal god Marduk, Tiamat's son, divided her into heavens above and earth below....in derivative Hewbrew myths Tiamat became "Tehom" The Deep; and this is how she appears in the Bible." Lots of other connections to other goddess myths, but basically she is the source of life, superior to male consorts or sons, with the "fluid of creation" being her menstrual blood. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:11:28 EST 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*] "Tiamat" reference To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU The Feminist Companion to Mythology (ed Caroline Larrington) has a several page entry on Tiamat by Iris Furlong, with some interesting wrinkles. According to this book, in the Akkadian creation myth there was fresh water, the god Apsu, and salt water, goddess Tiamat. They combined their waters and birthed a number of gods, who were visualized as living in Tiamat's belly. Furlong writes (p 60; *The first incident to occur in the primordial womb was that a band of young gods started, for no given reason, a rowdy disturbance. Their riotous behaviour annoyed Tiamat but upset Apsu much more. He complained...* He tells Tiamat that he is going to get rid of them. She was "shocked and horrified, and strongly opposed any proposal to annhilate them, arguing in their defense that they were young and should be treated with tolerance.." But Apsu enlists the aid of his prime minister (Mummu) and they planned to kill the gods in Tiamat's belly. The young rowdies heard about it and, fearful, calmed down. Then in steps Ea, who casts a spell on Apsu and Mummu, takes the crown from Apsu and puts it on his own head. Then he kills both of them... Ea then reigns, lives happily with his wife and has children. Then, a god named Anu (son of Tiamat and Apsu) conjured up four whirlwinds which blew in Tiamat's belly making life there unbearable. Furlong notes: "No motivation for Anu's onslaught against Tiamat is offered..." His plan back-fired, however, as there was support for Tiamat, and her supporters urged her to action. So, Tiamat declared war, with excitement and support from other gods. She created a number of venomous monsters to fight for her ... etc etc it's a long story with ups and downs.. but winds up with a confrontation between Tiamat and the young god Marduk. There is a fearful battle between them, during which Tiamat opened her mouth to devour Marduk, but he threw whirlwinds into her belly, distending it and then shot an arrow into her which tore her insides apart, split her heart and killed her. (How's that for gruesome?) Then he created the sky with the top half of Tiamat's body and the earth with other parts. Bottom line is, as Robin has noted and others, a rebellion against the primordial mother goddess. sighing, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:52:51 -0600 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 Snow Queen - immortality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Joyce Jones wrote: > I still can't understand why anyone would want immortality, > but the mers give some kind of understanding of what it would be like. > Marina talked about all the things she could learn and do. Well, after a > while I would think learning and doing new things could get just as boring > as buying new things. Eternity is an awful long time after all. To me, it the difference between consumption and creation. You can run out of books you could read, but you cannot run out of books you can write -- processing all the information, emotions, and expereince you keep receiving over the eternity and creating works of art, discoveries of science or general philosophy, or inventions in technology. Even such simple thing as human body has unlimited potential for new discoveries, let alone the nature in general. If you get tired of exploring the origins of life, you can switch to the puzzles of human behavior, or try inventing intergalactic spaceships, or artifical eyes, or whatever. I agree that consuming knowledge can eventually get tiring. But creating knowledge gives you only more satisfaction the more you do it. I see life (among other things) as a process of mapping the universe to the mental image inside one's brain. Which is why I never try to memorize anything, because as soon as I understand the concept, it falls into its place as a piece of the puzzle in my memory and stays there for good. Hell, I've got enough things I'd like to do and to keep me busy for at least next two thousand years. I'd spend at least a hundered of those on writing PhD thesises on the ideas that I already have in my head. After all -- who knows, you may ask me in two thousand years if I'm bored. But I don't think I will be :). People are often afraid of "living too long" because they don't want to outlive everyone they know. They are scared to be left there with all people that had been a part of their life having dissappered. But I have already went through something like that, as a teenager. When the war started, 80% of the city's previous population emigrated, replaced by those crooks from the mountains who made fortunes on the war. All my friends, aqciantances, parents' co-workers, my classmates, the salesclerks I used to see everyday at the grocery store nearby, and the doctors at the clinic I went to since I was a toddler -- they were all gone. I went to my old high school once when I was 19, there was only one teacher there that I knew, and she told me I was one of three people from my class still left in the city, just three years after the graduation. I felt kind of like one of those very old people visiting the place of their youth, with everyone else gone. Still, it was not the end of the world. Nothing is the end of the world, not even the end of the world itself. As long as you don't die, you can always meet some new people. Or just stay alone -- the friends you don't have cannot leave you. This universe is pretty big, and there is no way one can ever explore and understand it all, so there will always be something to do. Marina, who wants to live forever. http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:10:26 -0600 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: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Allyson Shaw wrote: > In terms of the Snow Queen, immortality > was seen as a spiritually bankrupt project, contrasted with the mer's > natural immortality and their spiritual mystery. I might be wrong, but I don't think mers' immortality was natural. For what I remember, they were "guinea pigs" for the experiment that was meant to be later extended to humans. However, the civilization of the scientists that were working on it has collapsed before they could infect humans with that virus of immortality premanently. I think that was why they drunk the solutions of mer's blood -- it gave them that virus, but it did not stay for a long time, so they had to keep getting reinfected. I guess what I am saying is that mers' immortality was artificial, created by humans. So the ethical question shifts from "evil technology vs. nature" to simply "technology that's not good enough". IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:40:54 EST 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/11/98 9:07:52 PM, you wrote: << But I was wondering if anybody's read any of the writing on dolphins by that drug scientist >> I think you mean John Lilly. LOL to hear him called the "drug scientist." lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 22:12:22 EST 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: Snow Queen discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/11/98 12:30:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, allyshaw@EARTHLINK.NET writes: << I wouldn't want to live forever, but then I definitely have a sense of something greater with a plan, and living forever would be usurping that plan. I also like the way Barbara put it-- not wanting to stay and take up space someone else could use. >> Thanks for the kind response. Often when I post a message with a religious flavor to it, I get sarcastic replies from those with differing viewpoints. Barbara ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:09:01 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen - immortality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/11/98 2:00:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: I can't imagine ever being tired of living, myself, unless I was in severe pain or trapped in a small bare room or something of that sort. I'd like to live forever and know everything, and that just for _starters_. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:11:50 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Whales occasionally attacked whaleboats or even sail-powered whaling ships. Steel whale-catchers are just outside their league; and in any case, they didn't have an instinctual "script" for dealing with objects outside their evolutionary experience. Frankly, I've never seen any real evidence that any cetacean species is smarter than a smart dog, and those are among the toothed whales. The baleen whales are like cows with fins -- it doesn't take much in the way of brains to sneak up on krill. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:23:43 -0500 Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: suzanne feldman Organization: or lack thereof Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen - immortality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU S.M. Stirling wrote: > > In a message dated 11/11/98 2:00:32 PM Mountain Standard Time, > my0203@BRONCHO.UCOK.EDU writes: > > I can't imagine ever being tired of living, myself, unless I was in severe > pain or trapped in a small bare room or something of that sort. I'd like to > live forever and know everything, and that just for _starters_. The problem with immortality is that you never get to quit your job and retire. It's like those vampire stories...what do those guys do for money besides bite folks and turn into bats? I prefer reincarnation: the great thing about the next life is that you can't start a savings account for it, even if you wanted to. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:28:53 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Maryelizabeth Hart Subject: [*FSFFU*] FEMSF- scattershot comments To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Bonnie: Great story! I only wish my quest for a childhood book had been as fruitful. Don't remember who put it together, or anything much except that it was a large blue cloth bound book of fairy tales, lavishly illustrated, and it was my first encounter with the story of "Donkeyskin." Immortality -- I always worry about ending up like the guy in Douglas Adams' books, traveling therough the universe insluting everyone in alphabetical order because I have run out of interesting things to do. "Wrenching" suggestion: Octavia Butler's KINDRED. Pax, Maryelizabeth Mysterious Galaxy 619-268-4747 3904 Convoy St, #107 800-811-4747 San Diego, CA 92111 619-268-4775 FAX http://www.mystgalaxy.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:11:45 -0600 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 Snow Queen - immortality Comments: To: suzanne feldman To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, suzanne feldman wrote: > The problem with immortality is that you never get to quit your job and > retire. It's like those vampire stories...what do those guys do for > money besides bite folks and turn into bats? I prefer reincarnation: the > great thing about the next life is that you can't start a savings > account for it, even if you wanted to. I don't like the reincarnation idea. You'd never know where you'll be stuck the next time. I'm not too excited about retiring, either. I'd rather enjoy my life now than work like a dog for forty years and save the money hoping to do the things I really want some day. And when the some day comes, I'm too old and sick to do anything, and then I die and all the money goes to someone else. Yikes. I'd rather live forever and never retire. It's like "free beer tomorrow". You know that joke? It's about a sign at the bar that says "Free beer tomorrow". You come the next day and ask for free beer. And the bartender says -- no, the free beer is tomorrow. "But I was here yesterday and it said 'tomorrow'." "Exactly. But today is not tomorrow -- today is today, and the free beer is tomorrow." Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:25:23 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Marina Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] FEMSF- scattershot comments To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > Immortality -- I always worry about ending up like the guy in Douglas > Adams' books, traveling therough the universe insluting everyone in > alphabetical order because I have run out of interesting things to do. IMHO, boredom is not a state, but the reflection of a personal attitude. If that guy from the book had nothing inside him to make his life meaningful, he would be bored even with 40 years of life, let alone an eternity. What I'm saying -- it's not the fault of eternity, it's just a failure to make one's life interesting. It's OK. I believe in choice, so those who want to live should live, and those who think they'd be only wasting space should not be forced to do that. IMHO, Marina http://members.aol.com/Lotaryn/index.html "Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society is selling at the time." Naomi Wolf ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:25:10 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: jean richards Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen - immortality To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I have just read what I consider to be a wonderful book on immortality. "The First Immortal" I'm not sure it qualifies as Feminist SF, but it certainly qualifies as addressing ethical and moral issues of equality. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 23:18:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen ->Tiamat To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Yes, thanks much, I knew it was something along those lines. But where Tiamat crossed paths with the Snow Queen. . . It could be a Summer thing, but we don't know, do we? Is there an explanation that I've missed? We have Sumarian references and pre-Celtic references and an Indian caste system in a science fiction novel based on a Danish literary fairy tale. And I know I'm old and cranky, but I'm just not enjoying this book the way I used to. Rebecca At 12:59 AM 11/11/98 CST, you wrote: >Rebecca wrote: > >>And would somebody do me a favor and >>look up the mythological reference for >>"Tiamat" and tell me how THAT relates >>to the Snow Queen. > >Rebecca: > >Here's the entry for the goddess "Tiamat" in Jessica Amanda Salmonson's >ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMAZONS: WOMEN WARRIORS FROM ANTIQUITY TO THE MODERN >ERA: > > >"Tiamat": Ceto in Greece, "Rahab" to the Hebrews. In one of the oldest >surviving religious texts, ENUMA ELISH (WHEN ON HIGH) of Babylonia, >about the second millennium B.C., the Dragon-goddess Tiamat overthrows >the assembly of gods. They afterward elect a new, young god as their >hero: > > When Tiamat heard the challenge > She became as one possessed; > She became beserk > She recited spells > While the gods of battle polished their steel. > Then joined Tiamat and Marduck, the young god. > They strove in single combat, locked in battle. > >This is essentially a myth of the overthrow of the Mother-goddess and >the rise of patriarchal rule, evoking an earlier time of women's rule. >In other ancient texts, including the Torah, the original Creatrix is >likened to Chaos, whose voice called forth the world, and the >patriarchal god wrestles her into submission in order to establish his >rule over the cosmos. See "Eurynome" for a parallel goddess. [Heidel] > > >--Sharon Clark ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:10:44 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >2) Especially to people on this list, seems odd we wouldn't accept that there might be a non-human "race" with their own agenda, culture, and a basically benign attitude towards humans. The mers were being slaughtered--drowned and butchered--for a milenium. Personally I would think that "the human problem" would be high on their agenda. But even if most of them were "out there" doing their mer thing, I suggested that the less evolved among them--the roughnecks, the tone deaf,the got-no-rhythym mers--might want to have a talk with Winters. >4) Why is violence a mark of "intelligence"? Never suggested that violence was a mark of intelligence. "Communication" is a mark of intelligence. "Self-assertion" is a mark of intelligence. I grew up with the Civil Rights movement. People faced fire hoses. People faced police dogs and batons and tear gas. People came together to assert their humanity, their right to dignity. Cetaceans don't seem capable of coming together to protest the pollution of the oceans, global warming, and the destruction of their food chain. As far as we know, they are not trying to figure out how to communicate with us. They are not training us to be better global citizens. I'm going out on a limb and say the ability to alter one's culture or agenda in the face of peril is a mark intelligence--and humans don't rank very high on that scale. As we saw with the mers and with whales and with dolphins, a failure to alter one's culture and agenda will most likely lead to extinction. Rebecca > Human societies with a belief in reincarnation, or those >who think it might someday be possible to preserve a mind in cyberspace once >the body has decayed, are postulating a kind of live-forever idea. I believe in reincarnation myself, and I would like clean and clean water and old growth forest when I get back. No fun living forever if we've created hell on earth. Also I have some extremely funky ideas about the fate of the human race when wolves can no longer reincarnate as wolves and rhinos can no longer come back as rhinos and tigers can't come back as tigers because THEY ARE ALL DEAD. It's not good news for people. . . ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 22:27:50 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >2) Especially to people on this list, seems odd we wouldn't accept that >there might be a non-human "race" with their own agenda, culture, and a >basically benign attitude towards humans. Actually this is an answer I could live with. If there was a purpose to their lives--their purpose--that transcended the extinction of their species and the destruction of their environment, then I could celebrate them and mourn them. But we don't know if they are victims of their own vision or martyrs. Perhaps they are so evolved that they don't draw a distinction between the living and the dead members of their species. Maybe us poor, ignorant creatures are the ones who suffer their loss. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:54:51 EST 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/14/98 4:21:07 AM, Rebecca wrote: <> In our search for a more equitable society, seems to me that Gandhi was right -- how we treat animals reflects how we treat each other. In the case of the cetaceans under question here, we kill them in painful ways. Under pressure, and with a world-wide conservation effort, commercial whaling was stopped for awhile. It is coming back (so are the whales). But, as to your argument, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to then say, poor beknighted creatures, they never learned how to make us stop killing them. Ah well, they just didn't get it. lightly lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 01:01:46 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/13/98 9:56:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, Zozie@AOL.COM writes: >In the case of the cetaceans under question here, we kill them in painful ways.> -- have you ever seen what a pod of orcas do to a right whale? They eat it alive, one bite at a time. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:49:44 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Rebecca wrote: If there was a purpose to > their lives--their purpose--that transcended the extinction of their > species and the destruction of their environment, then I could celebrate > them and mourn them. But we don't know if they are victims of their own > vision or martyrs. Perhaps they are so evolved that they don't draw a > distinction between the living and the dead members of their species. > Maybe us poor, ignorant creatures are the ones who suffer their loss. > I think you make an interesting argument in this post and your last, and it got me thinking about the book again. In your last post you mentioned that intelligence was linked to communicating and a desire for civil rights, etc. I thought about how many great people I know who do none of this activism, and how many people who lack political conciousness still do amazing things in the world. (Although a progressive conciousness doesn't hurt!) :) Going back to The Snow Queen-- Attitudes towards technology are polarized in the book between the Summers and the Winters. But the mers are a third part of the equation-- they are linked to technology-- the sybil source is a "machine" of some kind, but the mers, although they are now organic, spiritual entities with intelligence, were the product of bio engineering. It is interesting that it took a Summer Queen, a person from the non-tech culture, who is close to the mysterious, earthly presence of the sea, to (partially) realize the mer's significance. The mer's similarity to dolphins, etc. has engendered an OT thread that I think is relevant to the book. There are things in this world which carry information for us which may not seem "scientific" enough to be relevant, at least initially. I know this is a vague statement, but as long as we compare certain phenomena to our own static world views, we may be missing this information. The argument I'm making here is spritual in nature, and I fear many on the list may not have patience with it as such. But the Snow Queen brings up these questions through the themes of immortality and the mers. If we are to prioritize science over spritual information, as the Snow Queen did murdering the mers to be immortal, we are, in a way, creating the universe in our one image ( the Queen cloning herself). As a spiritual reality, that's a pretty dim prospect. The book seems to argue that fate (hence the central character of the mask-maker) plays a large role in human's lives, and Moon ends up renewing the planet, awakening it, despite the Snow Queen's intentions. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:12:57 EST 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/14/98 6:16:05 AM, you wrote: <<- have you ever seen what a pod of orcas do to a right whale? They eat it alive, one bite at a time. >> No I haven't. I doubt that you have either. Right whales are the most endangered of whale species. Orcas have been seen attacking other large whales -- grays, humpbacks. I don't know of any reports of attacks on rights, but it is certainly possible. And then, how else would they kill them? -- AK47s are hard for them to handle. And the point is -- they eat them, isn't it? This is OT. Sorry, friends. It was/is not my intention to discuss whales (we were talking originally about mers). And I don't want to get into a discussion of "they kill" too. I was bringing up the point that any number of species on our planet have remarkable social structures and quirks that are as fascinating as some of the "alien" societies we encounter in SF/F. And the further point that we humans have some queer ideas about what constitutes intelligence in non-humans. lightly, lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:48:10 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/13/98 10:16:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, JoatSimeon@AOL.COM writes: << have you ever seen what a pod of orcas do to a right whale? They eat it alive, one bite at a time. >> Yes, but they also do it one right whale at a time. And they eat it because they have to. I delicately remind that, !., we kill wholesale and outside of all natural systems of checks and balances and, 2., we don't need to. There isn't anything from whales that we need to survive. Has anyone heard about the Orcas eating otters because the seal populations have gotten so low? With the otters gone the sea urchins will multiply and there goes the kelp forests (this has happened before, when otters were hunted for pelt). Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 13:52:51 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/14/98 10:49:26 AM Mountain Standard Time, DMadrone@AOL.COM writes: >Yes, but they also do it one right whale at a time. -- orcas are broad-spectrum predators. They eat everything that moves, from fish to blue whales; they swim, eat and make little orcas, and that's about it. Excessive whaling was a bad thing, yes. >Has anyone heard about the Orcas eating otters because the seal populations have gotten so low? -- Orcas eat anything they can catch and always have. Incidentally, seal populations are up sharply and growing fast. There are millions of the suckers up along Labrador, since they stopped the annual seal harvest. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 22:01:58 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU S.M. Stirling responded to this question, >In the case of the cetaceans under question here, we kill them in painful ways.> with this comment: -- have you ever seen what a pod of orcas do to a right whale? They eat it alive, one bite at a time. What has this got to do with it? We are responsible for our actions, not theirs. We are killing them...why? because we NEED to? because they are a THREAT to us? No. Apparently to maintain some sort of tradition among peoples who need to justify their actions by claiming that the products produced are necessary and without substitute. Basically, it's just lack of human imagination in finding something less destructive, and more enriching, to do. Chris ========================================================================= Content-Disposition: inline Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:41:32 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jane Franklin Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU (I am amazed, btw, about the things that come up on this list.) (Returning to my desk and 348 email messages after long illness.) The thing about whales is that if they are in fact "equivalent" in intelligence to humans, that intelligence is bound to be totally different in kind from ours, simply because they don't have opposable thumbs and so on. The things their minds have evolved to do are different. I am not inclined to believe in superintelligent whales, because I have the spoilsport conviction that a lot of human thinking simply comes from the thumbs--we can do a lot more to our world than whales can to theirs. Although it would be an interesting idea if they could think and understand and despair because they just don't have the thumbs or the right vocal chords to communicate. Then there's the whole Descartes thing--if I recall, he wrote something about how animals were apparently machines, since there was no plausible evidence that they were conscious in the way we are and since it was quite possible that they only appeared to feel pain or felt it only as information if they did. I had an environmental studies professor (am not a science person, however, just had a science requirement. But one would assume that's obvious) who said that he could not think of a way to defuse this arguement and so just ignored it, because he had a dog. Of course, I think it's just a form of "what if I'm the only sentient being in the universe and everything else is just a giant hallucination?" Actually, there are a lot of philosophical arguements that you just have to ignore, I find, like determinism. Although, as far as the "oooh look what those killer whales do to cute lil' baby seals" kind of arguement, well, even if you argue that whales are moral patients, they, lacking opposable thumbs and all that follows, can hardly whip up a batch of tofu to substitute for their protein requirements. Were I, vegetarian that I am, marooned on an island (Dr. Island, perhaps...) I would eat raw fish if no other food source presented itself. On the other hand, since I live a mere mile from a very nice co-op, I don't yearn to chomp on whale meat. And since we have all sorts of lubricants and fuels, we don't really need whale oil. And, corsets being reserved for the perverse minority, we don't need whalebone either. Did anyone read a children's book wherein a teenage girl was sort of channeled by a whale? All these various whale kinds of things, under her leadership, arrived at a plan to prevent--some kind of environmental bad thing. The book affected me profoundly at the time. (Speaking of whales, does anyone know a Melville discussion list, or a list where it would be appropriate to discuss Melville? Private email responses would be better. I adore Melville, looking up as I do from a pit of profound ignorance about that period in American literature) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:04:00 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/16/98 9:46:10 AM Mountain Standard Time, JFrankln@FAMPRAC.UMN.EDU writes: >The thing about whales is that if they are in fact "equivalent" in intelligence to humans, that intelligence is bound to be totally different in kind from ours -- not necessarily. Humans are far, far more intelligent than they need to be to deal with their non-human environment. We probably evolved our intellects primarily to deal with each other, not with toolmaking or finding food -- those were side-effects, bonuses. So if whales are intelligent, they probably evolved it for social relations. I see no evidence that they're smarter than other large nonhuman mammals, though. >Then there's the whole Descartes thing--if I recall, he wrote something about how animals were apparently machines, since there was no plausible evidence that they were conscious in the way we are and since it was quite possible that they only appeared to feel pain or felt it only as information if they did. -- IMHO Descartes was given to excessive conclusions from questionble _a priori_ assumptions -- very French, in a line going right down to Foucault and de Man. Since we're mammals, and since we acquired our forebrains relatively recently (Descartes didn't know about evolution, of course) I'd say it's a fair bet that when another mammal has a reaction that's recognizably similar to ours (say, wincing from a blow) that their internal states are also quite similar to those of a human showing the same reaction. Ie., when you kick them, it hurts. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:42:54 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Allyson said: "The book seems to argue that fate (hence the central character of the mask-maker) plays a large role in human's lives, and Moon ends up renewing the planet, awakening it, despite the Snow Queen's intentions." I haven't read the two other books in the trilogy, but I thought this book was intimating that "fate" was not the guiding force, rather that the Sybil machine was behind everything. While Moon thought she was searching for Sparks to rescue him, or because of her love for him she realized that maybe her actions were being guided by the Sybil machine so that she could make a change in the culture of Tiamat. The mask maker's being a Sybil would have involved her also in the intended outcome of the queen selection. It might be a stretch to get at this next part, but while we humans are dominating the whales and dolphins, isn't it possible that they're achieving some kind of goal that we are ignorant of? Someday it seems that the dolphins will be able to speak to humans; but as has been said, until that time it it isn't guaranteed that they aren't communicating something significant among themselves. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:12:28 EST 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 11/16/98 9:59:20 PM, Joyce wrote: << until that time it it isn't guaranteed that they aren't communicating something significant among themselves.>> There are a number of scientific papers on objects that are communicated -- a kind of echolocation rebus (imagine a holograph in the water) which probably translates in the wild to images of sharks, food, etc. transmitted dolphin-to- dolphin. Dolphin and toothed-whale brains show significant folding. phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:56:18 -0800 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 Snow Queen - immortality Comments: To: suzanne feldman To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, suzanne feldman wrote: > It's like those vampire stories...what do those guys do for > money besides bite folks and turn into bats? I prefer reincarnation: the > great thing about the next life is that you can't start a savings > account for it, even if you wanted to. > > Suze/Severna > Jean-Claude runs several nightclubs in St. Louis. Henry Fitzroy writes romance novels. Andre lives with Diana Tregarde. 3 possible ansers. Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:40:31 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: > I haven't read the two other books in the trilogy, but I thought this book > was intimating that "fate" was not the guiding force, rather that the Sybil > machine was behind everything. That's interesting that you read them as separate. I thought the Sybil machine was kind of a "fate generator." How would you define fate in the book? --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:56:39 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: I don't think of anyone or anything > generating fate. I just see it as itself or due to karma or, to get > somewhat anthropomorphic, The Goddess. You're saying that the Sybil machine > was like karma or the same as the Goddess? That doesn't sound right. Those > beings made the Sybil machine, so you're saying the original intelligent > beings who made the Sybil machine and devised the immortality serum in the > blood of the mers were the same as gods and goddesses? Kind of like the Q > on Star Treck, that's a bit of a reach, I have to say I don't know all that > much about Q, I just liked what little I saw of him. Actually, I don't watch much star trek, but you are right, this is not a pleasant way to look at things-- seeing the inventors as gods-- I wonder if their motivation is explored in the sequel? I like to think that their motivation was not to create a fate machine, but in making what they did they tapped into or heightened some force that was already there? In making the mers intelligent they didn't give them everything that they are. Maybe some of the more mysterious and powerful aspects of the mers were created by the mers themselves. Perhaps the inventors didn't anticipate all that the sybil machine was? Hmmm... I was thinking about Carolyn Bynum's book Fragmentation and Redemption, where she compares medieaval mystics and theology with contemporary science fition in the last chapter. (It's a great book, has anyone read it?) Throughout the book she argues that the body itself may have a completely different history than we imagine. That the body was a spriritual tool for many women. It's fascinating, and I thought her ideas might apply to the mers-- that their intelligence and immortality didn't automatically equal their spiritual connection to the sybil machine. Maybe that connection was fostered by them using their bodies, etc.? Just an idea. > > Oh shoot, next you'll try to say there's no Santa Claus. He He. Actually it's the Easter Bunny who's really the big fake, right? I ate him last year, chocolate-- and he was good! --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:54:28 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Allyson Shaw wrote: >Joyce Jones wrote: >> I haven't read the two other books in the trilogy, but I thought this book >>was intimating that "fate" was not the guiding force, rather that the Sybil >>machine was behind everything. >That's interesting that you read them as separate. I thought the Sybil >machine was kind of a "fate generator." How would you define fate in >the book? Well now, that's an interesting question. I guess "the Fates" are supposed to spin fate in mythology, but in life, I don't think of anyone or anything generating fate. I just see it as itself or due to karma or, to get somewhat anthropomorphic, The Goddess. You're saying that the Sybil machine was like karma or the same as the Goddess? That doesn't sound right. Those beings made the Sybil machine, so you're saying the original intelligent beings who made the Sybil machine and devised the immortality serum in the blood of the mers were the same as gods and goddesses? Kind of like the Q on Star Treck, that's a bit of a reach, I have to say I don't know all that much about Q, I just liked what little I saw of him. Oh shoot, next you'll try to say there's no Santa Clause. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:18:49 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU One of the ways fiction, even the most mimetic, constantly differs from real life is that people tend to get their just desserts. In real life, the good often as not die young, and real villains die old and rich and universally acclaimed. Even Pol Pot died in bed of natural causes. Fiction written to this template would be just too depressing... but only the clinically depressed have a realistic appraisal of life. (This has actually been tested.) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:55:51 -0800 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 Snow Queen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 04:02 AM 11/11/98 -0800, Joyce wrote: >... But the >mers seemed to have achieved nirvana. The had complete enjoyment of every >moment of their existence, whether it lasted a minute or an eternity. They >lived completely in the present. Maybe the concept of death and slaughter >meant nothing to them. They just were, they expected nothing else. Perhaps this involves part of the Summer book -- I don't think we learned enough about the mers in the first book to say this much about them. However, I'd have to say that there are creatures far from immortal here on earth that have this zen-like approach: dogs. They don't get things like "I'll take you out -- later". A lack of awareness of time doesn't necessarily require immortality! Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:04:53 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Bucci, Elizabeth" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU After months of lurking, this is my first post on this listserv so go easy on me... I first read Snow Queen in high school and I absolutely adored it. I remember being absolutely drawn into the story and not being able to stop until it was finished. It was interesting to go back to this book some 16 years later only to find that it was just as wonderful an experience as the first time, except that, this time, with a full-time career and two small children, I was giving up on my sleep to finish the book! (Aside : I had forgotten pratically everything and so, it was like reading a new book!) Having reread it, and having gobbled up every last word of it, I really feel that this book can really be called a « classic »!! Having followed (and absolutely enjoyed!) the listserv's discussion intently, I must say that I was really in sync with most of the posts and often found myself nodding my head saying « yeah! me too! » (Especially the post which compared the « Prime Suspect » Helen Miren character to Jerusha...right on!) Accordingly, I'd prefer to focus on where my opinions are a little different from most of you and that is on the Moon-Sparks romance thread. Without quoting you individually, several posts did comment that the Moon-Sparks romance was one of the least likeable aspects of the book. I didn't feel this way at all! I remember that when I read the book as a star-struck teenager, I found the character of Sparks appealing on a very tragic level. As I watched him descend into this well of evil, I kept thinking « My God! what will Moon say when she sees him again! ». And, sure enough, the fact that he was so ashamed to have been seen by her as Starbuck...well, I bought into it. I guess it's the old « love conquers all » theme that suckered me in, as usual. It was interesting that I had the same reaction this time around (as a mature woman, haha!)...I liked the fact that Moon sticks to her guns and decides to love whoever the hell she pleases, even if he has become a jerk! As Marina puts it "I guess women have a right to want whoever they please just as well." Besides, I like how it's the fact that Moon is the one that "saves" him, rather than the other way around: kind of nice to see the woman being the strong character for a change and the one doing all of the rescuing! However, I will say that I am not convinced that there is a happy ending here: I think that Sparks will have a tough time adapting to being the Summer Queen's consort (after having been with the Winter Queen). But then, real life is like that, isn't it? Not all cut-and-dry, riding off into the sunset to live happily ever after...I guess I'll be sneaking around at night to read the sequel just to find out! Still awed that the term "feminist SF" exists after years of being an SF fan... --Elisabeth. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:26:09 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Bucci, Elizabeth wrote: Besides, I like how > it's the fact that Moon is the one that "saves" him, rather than the > other way around: kind of nice to see the woman being the strong > character for a change and the one doing all of the rescuing! I also liked the book, but one of it's weak points was the Sparks-Moon romance. I didn't see Moon as a Prince-like figure rescuing the Sparks-briar-rose character. She was more like the beauty in Beauty and the Beast. This myth that the love of a good woman can change a man is deeply rooted in the culture. Many women are attracted to self-hating men who they think they can change. Or women stay with abusers because they think their womanly love may have some kind of transformative power. It's hard to image a fairy tale in the reverse of the Snow Queen: where a woman shacks up with an evil King, loses her moral center, and kills things, but the prince still wants to redeem her. I'd really like to read a story like that, but haven't ever come across one. --Allyson. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:55:27 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Bertina Miller Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Actually I also have a problem with this 'mooning' Moon has for Sparks. This desperate need to get back with a guy who pretended to be two different people in order to help a woman who was genocidal is pathetic. The book is sappy at best and the only interesting character was the police woman who seemed the most realistic. Maybe I just am not a strong believer in a magic that would sway a person so strongly as to make the person go against everything he stood for. My 2 cents, Bertina On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Bucci, Elizabeth wrote: > After months of lurking, this is my first post on this listserv so go > easy on me... > > I first read Snow Queen in high school and I absolutely adored it. I > remember being absolutely drawn into the story and not being able to > stop until it was finished. It was interesting to go back to this book > some 16 years later only to find that it was just as wonderful an > experience as the first time, except that, this time, with a full-time > career and two small children, I was giving up on my sleep to finish the > book! (Aside : I had forgotten pratically everything and so, it was > like reading a new book!) Having reread it, and having gobbled up every > last word of it, I really feel that this book can really be called a > « classic »!! > > Having followed (and absolutely enjoyed!) the listserv's discussion > intently, I must say that I was really in sync with most of the posts > and often found myself nodding my head saying « yeah! me too! » > (Especially the post which compared the « Prime Suspect » Helen Miren > character to Jerusha...right on!) Accordingly, I'd prefer to focus on > where my opinions are a little different from most of you and that is on > the Moon-Sparks romance thread. Without quoting you individually, > several posts did comment that the Moon-Sparks romance was one of the > least likeable aspects of the book. I didn't feel this way at all! I > remember that when I read the book as a star-struck teenager, I found > the character of Sparks appealing on a very tragic level. As I watched > him descend into this well of evil, I kept thinking « My God! what will > Moon say when she sees him again! ». And, sure enough, the fact that he > was so ashamed to have been seen by her as Starbuck...well, I bought > into it. I guess it's the old « love conquers all » theme that suckered > me in, as usual. It was interesting that I had the same reaction this > time around (as a mature woman, haha!)...I liked the fact that Moon > sticks to her guns and decides to love whoever the hell she pleases, > even if he has become a jerk! As Marina puts it "I guess women have a > right to want whoever they please just as well." Besides, I like how > it's the fact that Moon is the one that "saves" him, rather than the > other way around: kind of nice to see the woman being the strong > character for a change and the one doing all of the rescuing! > > However, I will say that I am not convinced that there is a happy ending > here: I think that Sparks will have a tough time adapting to being the > Summer Queen's consort (after having been with the Winter Queen). But > then, real life is like that, isn't it? Not all cut-and-dry, riding off > into the sunset to live happily ever after...I guess I'll be sneaking > around at night to read the sequel just to find out! > > Still awed that the term "feminist SF" exists after years of being an SF > fan... > > --Elisabeth. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 21:16:19 +0100 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: kelly boyle To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Actually I also have a problem with this 'mooning' Moon has for Sparks. >This desperate need to get back with a guy who pretended to be two >different people in order to help a woman who was genocidal is pathetic. >The book is sappy at best and the only interesting character was the >police woman who seemed the most realistic. Maybe I just am not a strong >believer in a magic that would sway a person so strongly as to make the >person go against everything he stood for. I always felt that the - rather silly - loyalty that Moon feels for Sparks is highly realistic, at least if you take into account that she is a teenager. I have no end of friends who would still fall for someone like Sparks and stick to him through thick and thin...The problem for me lies more in the fact that this attitude, while it is credible to me, to some extent destroys the feeling that Moon comes from a different, egalitarian and non-exploitative culture, since I always believed that women fall for men of that kind because of built-in expectations in our culture. Myself, I rather like Snow Queen, though I prefer the sequel simply because I didn't recognise the mythical allusions as clearly in that (well, once I thought of going in for Celtic studies, so the book gets a feel of 'oh, and there's so-and-so, too'). Kristina Hildebrand ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 15:31:21 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Allyson wrote: It's hard to image a fairy tale in the reverse of the Snow Queen: where a woman shacks up with an evil King, loses her moral center, and kills things, but the prince still wants to redeem her. I'd really like to read a story like that, but haven't ever come across one. That's because the only thing that ever matters about females in fairy tales is what they look like, and their moral center is ALWAYS reflected in their looks. "losing her moral center" would inevitably mean she would turn ugly, and the prince wouldn't want anything to do with her any more. *sigh*. -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:55:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This gave me a giggle, because I have two male characters who are suckers for just that kind of woman. And no, the women didn't turn into hags when they "lost their moral center." One looks like a young Elizabeth Taylor, one looks like Camryn Manheim, and one looks like a young Jane Fonda. (For anybody who doesn't know Camryn Manheim--she recently won a Emmy for best actress in a dramatic TV series. You can check her out at www.camryn.com.) All three women keep insisting, "You can't save me; I'm too far gone. Don't think I'm special. I'll destroy you, too." The Taylor character chose death over redemption; the Fonda character is just starting down the dark side. She never gets as vicious as the other two. She has more alternatives for action. I'm wondering if I should work a little harder to save the Manheim character. . . ? Up to the last minute, I thought I had saved the Taylor, but she flipped me off and went out snarling and spitting. Rebecca At 05:30 PM 11/30/98 CST, Sandy wrote: >Allyson wrote: > > It's hard to image a fairy tale in the reverse of the Snow Queen: where >a woman shacks up with an evil King, loses her moral center, and kills >things, but the prince still wants to redeem her. I'd really like to >read a story like that, but haven't ever come across one. > >That's because the only thing that ever matters about females in fairy tales >is what they look like, and their moral center is ALWAYS reflected in their >looks. "losing her moral center" would inevitably mean she would turn ugly, >and the prince wouldn't want anything to do with her any more. *sigh*. > > -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:21:11 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Rebecca Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 05:19 PM 11/30/98 CST, Allyson wrote: >I also liked the book, but one of it's weak points was the Sparks-Moon >romance. I didn't see Moon as a Prince-like figure rescuing the >Sparks-briar-rose character. She was more like the beauty in Beauty and >the Beast. This myth that the love of a good woman can change a man is >deeply rooted in the culture. Many women are attracted to self-hating >men who they think they can change. Or women stay with abusers because >they think their womanly love may have some kind of transformative >power. No, no, no! You've got the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast! Pahtooie! Oh, I hate that movie! A young girl wants adventure so she throws in her lot with a spoiled, abusive brat in a beast-form. (And he's been told that he has to find his true love by the time he's TWENTY-ONE or he'll be a beast forever. DON'T TELL KIDS CRAP LIKE THAT!!!!!) No, check out the story on http://tam-lin.org/tamlin2.html or rent the Jean Cocteau version of the movie. The beast in actually a mature man of taste and breeding. He has a temper and years of living alone have made him fierce. He has a passion for growing roses, and he is outraged when Beauty's father picks one. Beauty is afraid but she takes her father's place in the Beast's castle, where she blossoms into a kind and loving woman, who can see past his hideous appearance. Now, you won't ever read the opposite of this fairytale--where a woman has been turned into a Beast and the innocent youth learns to love her for her inner qualities! I've tried rewriting that one a couple of times. I can't make it believable. Rebecca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 11:06:25 +0200 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: U Sanna Koulu Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Rebecca wrote: > Now, you won't ever read the opposite of this fairytale--where a woman has > been turned into a Beast and the innocent youth learns to love her for her > inner qualities! I've tried rewriting that one a couple of times. I can't > make it believable. Just a quick thought - if I remember it correctly, there has been such a story in one of MZB's Sword and Sorceress anthologies. Vera Nazarian's "Beauty and His Beast", which I thought lovely when I last read it. - Sanna -Sanna Koulu -------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------"And when she was good she was ----- -050-5849 617 --------------------very, very good, and when she ----- -Viljo Sohkasen k. 3 E 38---------was bad she was horrid." ---------- -01370 VANTAA ------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:54:05 -0500 Reply-To: Lilith Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Lilith Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Rebecca wrote: > >> Now, you won't ever read the opposite of this fairytale--where a woman has >> been turned into a Beast and the innocent youth learns to love her for her >> inner qualities! I've tried rewriting that one a couple of times. I can't >> make it believable. Actually, C.J. Cherryh's "Gate of Ivrel" series might qualify - Morgaine is a character whose actions could be construed as "evil", even if they are necessary - in any case she is uncompromising and driven, and is by no means a sweet, passive maiden. And Vanye is in many ways an innocent youth, who comes to love her as she is. Lilith ********************************************* ************Hell's Half Acre*************** * http://www.concentric.net/~Ligeia * ********************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 12:39:23 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@SFF.NET Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Elizabeth ebucci@FOXBORO.CA wrote > It was interesting to go back to this book > some 16 years later only to find that it was just as wonderful an > experience as the first time, except that, this time, with a full-time > career and two small children, I was giving up on my sleep to finish the > book! ... /snip/ ... I found the character of Sparks appealing on a very > tragic level. As I watched him descend into this well of evil, I kept > thinking ´ My God! what will Moon say when she sees him again! And, > sure enough, the fact that he was so ashamed to have been seen by her as > Starbuck...well, I bought into it. I very much had this reaction also. I haven't reread the book in over fifteen years, so it is less fresh in my mind, but I recall liking it very much, for exactly the reasons you describe. I remember one of the most powerful scenes as being when they make love for the first time after she has been gone. I'm going on a very dated memory here, but I recall that scene being rich with themes of redemption, and the relinquishing of anger and fear. I may have conflated several themes in the book, though, given how long it's been. But that it stays in my mind even after all the years and all the hundreds of books I've read since then, says a lot. > ...I liked the fact that Moon sticks to her guns and decides to love > whoever the hell she pleases, even if he has become a jerk! I don't remember him being a jerk so much as messed up by the drug. So Moon helped him recover. This had probably already been brought out by others, here, though; I haven't read all the thread. But if I remember correctly, Moon was the only one who didn't stand in judgement on him. She saw that he was messed up "on the outside," but that the basic man beneath was still the one she had loved. > I like how it's the fact that Moon is the one that "saves" him, rather than > the other way around: kind of nice to see the woman being the strong > character for a change and the one doing all of the rescuing! Yes, I liked the way that was done, also. Moon was the source of strength on many levels, both emotional and in terms of her actions. Sparks needed her strength. Usually in fiction it's the other way around. > I guess it's the old ´ love conquers all theme that suckered me in, as > usual. Well, heck. It can, with the right people and a real love. :-) Throughout the history of the human race, what has brought peace? After the diplomats, the warriors, and the monarchs go home, what actually makes the peace work? It is people who, one by one, make bridges to one another. Often those bridges come in the form of love, not just in a traditional sense of marriage and children, but in the wider sense of individuals of any sex, race, color, or creed reaching past their differences to join with one another. So I don't think you were suckered, or bought into anything. :-) It is a powerful force in our lives and that makes it a powerful theme in literature. Ironically, it is that power which also makes it hard to take sometimes. If love can achieve so much, why hasn't it done more? Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:41:50 -0600 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: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Rebecca wrote: (snip) > Now, you won't ever read the opposite of this fairytale--where a woman has > been turned into a Beast and the innocent youth learns to love her for her > inner qualities! I've tried rewriting that one a couple of times. I can't > make it believable. In Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Tale, didn't the ugly woman convince a handsome, young knight to marry her and he eventually sees her as beautiful because he falls in love with who she is and not just her appearance? I always liked how it was the woman who was ugly and the man learns to love her. It's always the other way around in most stories. I read this a long time ago so I might have it slightly wrong. > Rebecca > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:01:46 -0400 Reply-To: asaro@SFF.NET Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Sparks To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 05:19 PM 11/30/98 CST, Allyson wrote: >I also liked the book, but one of it's weak points was the Sparks-Moon >romance. I didn't see Moon as a Prince-like figure rescuing the >Sparks-briar-rose character. She was more like the beauty in Beauty and >the Beast. This myth that the love of a good woman can change a man is >deeply rooted in the culture. Many women are attracted to self-hating >men who they think they can change. Or women stay with abusers because >they think their womanly love may have some kind of transformative >power. I haven't read all the posts in this discussion, but from the ones I've seen, it looks to me like people are talking about two different types of relationships. In one type, the person (eg Sparks) is emotionally troubled; in the other, the person is abusive. The two aren't equivalent. In my work and training as a sexual harrassment/abuse counselor, and as a student counselor, I've run across both. In the former case, where a person has been emotionally damaged by events in his or her life, the support and love from a loved one can make a world of difference. The injured person needs someone who doesn't stand in judgement and whose love doesn't have conditions. In fact, often at least part of the reason that person may injured, emotionally, is because they haven't had that kind of love in their lives. In such relationships the effects of genuine, unconditional love truly can be transformative. I've seen it myself. This does assume, however, that there is a basic decency at the core of the person's personality. An abusive relationship it a VERY different kettle of tea. The abuser may be repeating patterns of violence or emotional manipulation he or she learned from an early age, patterns that have become so ingrained they don't know any other way of interacting with people. Or they may lack compassion or the ability to empathize with others. They often have a negatively distorted view of the people who interact with them and project their own personality problems onto others, yet become enraged or vindictive if those traits are attributed to them. Abusers usually have a strong need to be in control, and impose their will through emotional manipulation or physical violence. When a woman stays with an abusive man, it is rarely because she has bought into a myth that a good woman can save a needy man. Often she feels she =can't= leave, either because she fears for her physical safety (or life) or because the emotional manipulation has messed her up. She feels trapped. This is complicated because usually the abuser isn't always abusive. Erratic positive reinforcement is even more effective in changing behavior than continual positive reinforment, that is, the person being abused will get to the point where she (or he) will do almost anything to please the abuser in the hopes of evoking the reward of that tender, but unpredictable, behavior. It is usually difficult to solve the problems in such a relationship without counseling for all parties involved. Generally it will only work if the abuser is willing to acknowledge the problem and agree to go for help. If that person genuinely wants to break out of the cycle, then (good) counseling can help a great deal. The relationship of Moon and Sparks in THE SNOW QUEEN is of the first type. Sparks is a mess, there's no doubt about that. His experiences and the drug have taken him a long way down a road he didn't want to travel. He wants out, but doesn't know how to find his way. If I remember correctly, =Sparks= is the one in the role of the abuse victim. Nor does he have Moon's emotional strength. She doesn't judge him for that, however, she simply loves him. Which is where redemption comes in. In order for a redemption theme to work, of course, there has to be something to redeem. But in Spark's case, I remember it being there. Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 10:45:02 -0500 Reply-To: kamholse@fuse.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Snow Queen: In defence of Spa To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >In Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Tale, didn't the ugly woman convince a >handsome, young knight to marry her and he eventually sees her as >beautiful because he falls in love with who she is and not just her >appearance? I always liked how it was the woman who was ugly and the man >learns to love her. It's always the other way around in most stories. I >read this a long time ago so I might have it slightly wrong. >Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) The very example I was thinking of. There is also a loathly lady in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I think, though, in the Wife of Bath's Tale, the ugly old woman actually turns into a beautiful young woman--it is not just the young man's perception of her. Sally Kamholtz