Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:53:29 -0000 From: Jane Fletcher Subject: [*FSF-L*] [BDG} Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU As nominator I thought I'd start the discussion off with some general impressions of the book. The thing I like most about 'Ash' is that I don't quite know how to classify what I'm reading. My best attempt so far would be that it is fantasy, using the trappings of alternate history to provide richness of background, written in the style of a modern war novel to give a punch to the writing - however my opinion may well change. This unpredictability is, for me, pretty much a trade mark of Mary Gentle's work. I feel that anything could happen. I started out reading the book as alternate history - until the golem turned up. By the time I got to the perpetual twilight it was much more like fantasy. Except, if it was a pure fantasy, there would have to be a map at the front showing where the various towns were, and a situation like the Wars of the Roses could not be used so casually for incidental background. I suspect that the next few fantasy novels I read are going to seem pathetically two-dimensional. However the weight of detail (countries, people, artefacts and armour) would be too much to throw in, if it were all new to the reader. I am mesmerised by the character of Ash. In particular I can't think of any other hero (and definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled - Gentle goes to great length to show her as a mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the possible exception of her followers). With any other writer I would assume that, despite initial faltering, the hero would end up on the side of 'Good'. However I don't think Gentle is into depicting the battle of good versus evil, rather she presents groups with different interests and perspectives. Ash is motivated by her own self interest. So far I am on her side, but it might change. As with the plot, I don't know where Ash herself is going, and it is quite possible that by the end I will have ceased to like her. At this point in the story I have a lot of unanswered questions, largely concerned with Ash's past. I am hoping (though I guess it isn't certain) that they will be answered by the end of the complete book. My dislikes are pretty much confined to the use of present tense. I have an almost pathological hated of the form, however since the story only strays into it for the occasional sentence I can live with it. The amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer hasn't worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many other reviewers seem to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what I would expect reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I. Is it that other reviewers are reacting to the depiction of real violence in a knights-in-armour setting or have I become desensitised by watching too much news on television? As a final, incidental point, one of my favourite moments is Ash getting ready to meet Duke Charles - it comes from such an unexpected angle that it was only when I was half way through the next page I realised I'd just read a version of the scene showing a young woman preparing for an important event by being totally preoccupied by her clothes. Jane ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:58:21 -0800 From: Sharon Anderson Subject: [*FSF-L*] What Makes It Feminist? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Okay, haul out your soapboxes, I am Bringing Up That Question again. I am bringing it up because of Maire's question about Doris Lessing, which is the same one recently raised by my roommate. And I am bringing it up in anticipation of our discussion of Ash, which is due to start...any time now. When I started the Ash book, I was very frustrated because Ash is so clearly the queen bee, I-am-an-exception type, who can deal with women serving in the ranks, but only under rigidly defined contexts. She is extremely class conscious -- not unexpected in a fifteenth (sixteenth?) century European. But she doesn't grow out of this into a new understanding. I was ready to throw the book across the room, until my roommate asked if the author was using the character as a negative model, in which case the book might be feminist after all. To be honest, though, it's a question I can't answer. I didn't like Ash well enough to read the 3 sequels in order to find out. I certainly couldn't tell by the end of book #1. And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I don't care how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Can a book have a male as the main character, and still be feminist? I am willing to admit that the main character can be male and still enjoyable, but male and feminist? To take it one step further, trying to make a point by using a male character as the hero or martyr or martyred hero, is a strategy that plainly sucks. Just because you use men as the example of how horrible a condition is (usually for women) does not, in my sight, make it feminist. Just turning it on its ear is not enough to qualify. I am currently reading "Wicked," which I did not expect to like because it is written by a man. I do like it. Very much. In my experience, Samuel Delaney and John Varley and (okay, okay, you can throw tomatoes now) Roger Zelazney are the only authors with a Y chromosome whose books I can actually finish. What a shock to discover I have to add another to the list. So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction feminist? ---s ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:05:04 -0500 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] What Makes It Feminist? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >When I started the Ash book, I was very frustrated because Ash is so >clearly the queen bee, I-am-an-exception type, who can deal with women >serving in the ranks, but only under rigidly defined contexts. She is >extremely class conscious -- not unexpected in a fifteenth (sixteenth?) >century European. But she doesn't grow out of this into a new >understanding. I can see the queen-bee analogy, but where does she seem to be restricting the roles of women in the ranks? Certainly she's an exception, but in medieval Europe she would be. In one of the interviews I read Gentle talks about how frustrating she finds it that a lot of pseudo-historical fantasy doesn't treat the issue of sexism at all, and specifically says that she created Ash to be a real, plausible person. Remember, Ash is nineteen years old. She is the exception, yes, she's class-conscious because she's trying to figure out how she can get real power and she's a mercenary, she follows the power and the money. Think of the common meaning of the word "mercenary"--that's her job. She has to be different from all the women who can't be leaders, there has to be some reason why she's running a mercenary company. At some point in the first book she speaks to one of her female soldiers and thinks of how much she enjoys seeing a sister in arms. But she can't possibly have a modern feminist awareness. It's common to project these things backwards in historical fiction, and I loathe it. No fifteenth century woman is going to think of herself as paving the way for future female warriors. She's grabbed a handful of power and she wants to keep it; she's not going to jeopardize that for our ideals. Realistically, there was no hope for those ideals at that time, so why endanger her company? >And to bring up a really old thread, I HATED "The Sparrow." I don't >care how many awards it won, it is not a feminist book. Can a book >have a male as the main character, and still be feminist? Well, I'm with you on this one, but not because of the man. I thought the ending was a total letdown in a purely literary sense, and I also thought it was sexist and thoughtless. Also, as SF, it was pretty uninformed! Some of the main plot devices stemmed from a error which no viewer of Star Trek could make. She talks about wanting to show that in a foreign environment people couldn't possible know how they'd affect an underdeveloped culture; but to me, the results were telegraphed half a book in advance. >So, what are the essential elements that make a work of fiction >feminist? I would say that they are an awareness of, and an exploration of, feminist issues; which term I mean in a very broad sense, including political equality, sex-roles, reproduction and childrearing and biological imperatives, the perception of heterosexuality as the norm AND the problems with the "traditional" family units even if one is heterosexual...someone already mentioned Bujold's _Ethan of Athos_, which has a man as a protagonist and is absolutely feminist. On the other hand, I still hate Heinlein's _Friday_, whose hero is a super-strong, super-competent, sexually liberated woman. I think _Ash_ is absolutely a feminist novel. It features a woman in a man's job, struggling to get what she wants, sometimes trying to act like a man and sometimes playing up her beauty (there's a scene in a later book where she realizes that she has failed at something because she has used her appearance as a weapon and right now she is not beautiful; it's a pragmatic and coldly analytical moment). She's complex, not wholly likeable, very real. I can't wait for the last book. Whoever said this book would prompt discussion because some people would hate it was certainly right. I hope we'll hear more from other people who had problems with it; it makes me think about it more. Jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:36:18 -0800 From: Sharon Anderson Subject: [*FSF-L*] Male Protagonists.....etc. To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU << I've been thinking a lot of Lois McMaster Bujold as this discussion has been unfolding. Might some people consider her to not be a feminist because her main character in the Vorkosigan series is male? But then what about Miles' mother Cordelia being the main character in two of the books? What of all of the feminist concepts I've seen in the books I've read so far? >> My roommate and I are having an absolute ball reading aloud to each other Bujold's books as we respectively take turns cooking dinner. I have been collecting Miles for a long time, and it was a delight to go back and re-read Cordelia. I wasn't sure at first whether Miles would pass muster with my roommate. She's much more radical and political than I am. But I've always considered the books feminist, and apparently she does, too. Somebody else asked me how I felt about the character in "The Left Hand of Darkness." This book will always remain one of my favorites. The idea of a character who was neither strictly male nor strictly female was new to me, and I never considered Estraven male. I considered Estraven as Other. On the other hand, Melissa Scott's book about the five sexes struck me as five different varieties of male complaining about how tough they had it. I love Scott, and I was surprised at having this reaction to the book. << I can see the queen-bee analogy, but where does she seem to be restricting the roles of women in the ranks? Certainly she's an exception, but in medieval Europe she would be. In one of the interviews I read Gentle talks about how frustrating she finds it that a lot of psuedo-historical fantasy doesn't treat the issue of sexism at all, and specifically says that she created Ash to be a real, plausible person. << She accepts women as figures who act in traditional roles as long as they are overt and have the cojones to get away with it. She is totally freaked out when she finds Florian is really Floria, and comes completely undone when she catches her with another woman. Although she remarks that it is perfectly all right for Angelotti to be with other men. I agree with you about the fact that she is who she is partly because of the time and partly because of her class. She is just trying to get a little piece of it for herself. And I suppose I can't expect her to look beyond that. Sigh. >> >As nominator I thought I’d start the discussion off with some general impressions of the book.< As you can see above, his message arrived garbled (every line has similar hash) and I don't know if it's my browser or if something earlier in the line of transmission is to blame. Did you translate it directly from a word processor? Did anyone else have this problem? << YES!!!!!! Does it have to do with writing it in HTML or something? I get very frustrated when reading messages like this and often delete them unread because dealing with the trash in the text proves too big a chore. ----s ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:05:50 -0800 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This is the first BDG book I've tried to read and was unable to finish. Well, far from being unable to finish, I barely started it. I managed to get through the 2 year old dragging herself through the camps eating scraps, I made it through the rape and face slashing, I got through the explicit slaughter of the cow as it screamed in pain and closed the book in disgust. I'm assuming that there's no let up here, there's one violent, torturous scene after another to which the characters react with as little emotion as possible. What is the point of such a book? I read for several reasons: enjoyment, knowledge, mind expansion. This book provides none of these things. I didn't enjoy it at all. It does provide some knowledge of camp life in the dark ages, I think. Admittedly I know little about this, but should I decide to know more I'll pursue information that is less explicitly inhumane. Yes, I know people can be inhumane, and knowing this I feel no need to immerse myself in every gory detail. Which leads to the third reason for reading -- mind expansion. I think sadistic writing leads not to mind expansion but to mind numbing. To become inured to human suffering is to kill an important piece of one's humanity. To my mind the basis of feminism is to enable people to form a society in which all people are safe, free to develop their potential, encouraged to grow intellectually and artistically. If one becomes dead to compassion how can s/he possibly work to ensure the safety or freedom of others? So I have to say that no, this is not a feminist book regardless of the fact that the main character is female. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:30:29 0100 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU For me Ash was pure fun to read. Which was a surprise because after the reviews I expected something very, very long with lots of gory details. Well, at the moment I'm very happy that there are still 3 Ash books out there to read. Jane Fletcher wrote: "The amount of blood and guts which has so concerned other reviewer hasn't worried me, if anything I am a bit shocked that so many other reviewers seem to be shocked. The degree of gory detail is about what I would expect reading a story set in the Vietnam War or World War I." I also expected more drastic descriptions of what battle injuries at that time looked like. Compared to what is nowadays standard I think Ash rather mild. Compared to Lord of the Rings it's drastic. But the "tone" of LotR is so different, that such a comparison is not really appropriate. The book is IMO surprisingly funny. While reading I was grinning half of the time. What did people think of the "frame"? I loved these emails. (Anna to Pierce: "*GOLEMS*???!!! In mediaeval Europe?!") I'm so curious how it will end. In an interview Gentle said that in the frame story she provided all the information for the readers not so knowledgable about 14th century history (i.e. probably most of us) on what is "true" history and what is not. I think it worked very well. I have read only 1 or 2 alternate histories and it always drove me crazy that I couldn't tell what's alternate and what's not (and I think my knowledge of history is at least average). For me it impairs the enjoyment of these books. Jane Fletcher wrote: "I am mesmerised by the character of Ash. In particular I can't think of any other hero (and definitely not a female one) who is simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled - Gentle goes to great length to show her as a mercenary who is happy to sell out any cause (with the possible exception of her followers)." Hmmm, exactly where did she act unprincipled? To me it appeared as if she followed the code of the mercenary. Which she perceives as different to the code of the aristocracy. She's deeply disappointed about the treason of her husband although at the same she is of the opinion that if she did the same it wouldn't be treason. Granted, there are personal feelings involved (without which she had probably disposed of her husband within 1 week). I wonder whether Fernando will reappear in the later books and whether he will grow. At the moment he's simply a toad. Ash is a character with many sides. She is ruthless. And self-serving, but also very committed to her company. Loyal to her friends (see Floria/n). But in this first book she is more forced to do things, she's more reactive than active (with some notable exceptions). For several chapters she stresses that she cannot marry Fernando, that she has to do something against it, but in the end she marries him apparently without taking any counter-measures. At the end of the book she seems to take the initiative. About Ash's childhood. I cannot quite decide whether it is believable that after running around uncared for as a toddler (is it possible that a child survives that in a mercenary camp?), being raped with 6 and then killing the rapists, being punished for that, etc. a person would be so functional and "untwisted". Jane Fletcher wrote: "As a final, incidental point, one of my favourite moments is Ash getting ready to meet Duke Charles - it comes from such an unexpected angle that it was only when I was half way through the next page I realised I'd just read a version of the scene showing a young woman preparing for an important event by being totally preoccupied by her clothes." Which scene is that again? (I just went back to the book but could not find it immediately). I liked the dress sitting of Ash with her future mother-in-law where Ash humors Constanza up to a point but is never thrilled by finally seeing herself in such feminine clothes (a standard scene in romance novels). So much for today. Petra ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:33:10 -0000 From: Jane Fletcher Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Petra wrote: <> Swapping sides three times. You could argue that she had little choice and that it is the mercenary code, however the code for literary heroes is to be on the side of 'right' and ridding the world of evil. It is quite refreshing to have a hero who is so totally motivated by self-interest. It will be interesting to see whether in the climax of the story she will do a 'Han Solo' and ride in with the cavalry. On current showing you would have to guess that she'll take the money and run. There is also cold-bloodedly deciding she would probably have her husband murdered - he is obnoxious, but he doesn't really deserve it. The scene of Ash getting worked up over her clothes is at the start of the second half of chapter five, part four. It ends with 'every chest turfed out', her page in tears and Ash throwing bottles. It is a very minor part of the story, however, for me, it illustrated SF's ability to show something very familiar from an unexpected angle. I'm not sure if I would classify Ash as a feminist book, but I think it is a book that would be impossible without feminism. Ash is a woman who totally defines herself by her own abilities, not by her relationship to the men in her life. Jane ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:10:38 -0000 From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash also SPOILERS from The Sparrow [Was: What Makes It Feminist?] To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU So many threads... First...let me run my colours up the mast: * I enjoyed and would recommend The Sparrow. * Also Bujold. * Not Ash. (*I also like Patrick O'Brian...but that's *really* off-topic ;-) (1) The Sparrow Nutshell: I enjoyed the book... but didn't think of it as feminist. More specifically: I was not angered (as Jessie was) because I felt the trauma of the main character was taken too seriously. The trauma was a serious one - I thought the big point about the trauma was that it was spiritual - although there was torture involved, too (some mixed evidence for Julieanne's theory about religious leanings: I didn't have a conventionally religious upbringing - but I did have one 'hit' in recommending the book to a friend who is a catholic mystic...). But...let's say I agreed with Jessie that the society devoted too much attention to his trauma. That could be just plain annoying to me (as in: 'throw this book at the wall NOW' - which does happen...). Or it could be something the author is doing, in order to tell me something -about the characters in the story, and their expectations, or about what the society in the book is like. This latter is harder for an author to pull off successfully, I think. I make a strong distinction between portrayals of: 'things I like and would like to be true'- which I think forms a lot of the appeal of the sf genre in general (and fsf is no exception) and 'things which stretch my ideas of how society does or could work even if they portray situations which are unjust or horrible or frustrating'. For me, if a work doesn't hit the spot with wish fulfillment (or fantasy, or whatever), and it *just* portrays things which are unjust or horrible or frustrating, with no Redeeming Mind Expanding Quotient (RMEQ) then it's Throw At Wall Time. (Which is how a lot of people took Sparrow, it seems. And, incidentally...why I didn't like Angela's Ashes.) (2) Bujold I enjoy the Vor series in a chocolate covered cherries kind of way. Not very nutritious, but very more-ish. Feminist? Mildly, perhaps, with the wind in a favourable direction. As in: feminist in that it is not conventionally sexist. Exploring how *different* forms of sexism work - which the Vor books do, to some extent - *can* be a way of sneaking in doses of RMEQ, as other readers have pointed out. But for me, Bujold isn't about RMEQ - it's about adventure, set against background which is pleasantly backlit with a light dose of alternative sexism. (3) Ash Not much in the way of 'things I like and would like to be true'. Nor much RMEQ. (Though later volumes try for this very hard.) Result: Throw at wall. I am uneasy about the divergence between my Reader-Rxns and BDG-normal. A certain level of disagreement is fun - and essential - on a list. (But I also know there are limits to what works well...) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:52:10 +1100 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash also SPOILERS from The Sparrow [Was: What Makes It Feminist?] To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 08:10 AM 8/11/00 -0000, Heather Stark wrote: >(3) Ash > >Not much in the way of 'things I like and would like to be true'. >Nor much RMEQ. (Though later volumes try for this very hard.) > >Result: Throw at wall. After finally finishing the marathon Journey of Ash in the UK edition (which makes no distinction between the 4 'Parts') I have come to a similar viewpoint - except it is so large, it may very well damage the wall if I threw it! On the negatives - firstly, the unnecessary verbiage detracts from what might have been a romping good fun adventure story with some intriguing ideas, twists & plot devices. On one level, it reminded me of Titanic - (which must have been the first movie I have ever walked out of in my life, as I kept fidgeting through those interminably long drawn-out scenes grimacing in frustration thinking "Is there a point to all this verbiage?") Similarly with Ash, although it started off OK, the detailed descriptions of the mercenary camps & Ash's childhood, discovery of the "voices" etc were important to an understanding of the character I guess - but by midway, I was skimming several pages at a time without losing anything of the very slow-moving plot - by the end, I could not have cared less "Why Burgundy?" - all those long loving details of how medieval latrines & garderobes were designed etc - left me bored - it certainly helped me sleep these last weeks! Secondly, I felt little empathy with any of the characters, particularly Ash. For a start, she kept making a lot of mistakes, personally, politically, socially and most importantly militarily. I'm surprised she was able to command the loyalty of her men - but on the other hand, this would have helped make her appear more real, more plausible, if the writing style didn't have her sputtering repetitive expletives for 9 out of every 10 lines of the script, or asking dumb questions, going off at tangents, freaking out for no reason, never getting to the point etc. And blaming it on the vagaries of translating medieval dog-latin, being a "First Draft", or the "poetic licence" of the translator (the historian, Pierce) seems to me a bit of a cop-out. As for other characters, the priest Godfrey in particular, but even Florian/Floria never quite 'ring true' for me - they were too sugary, too flawless, upstanding and Disney-like in their high moral ground (despite loving Ash). Nonetheless I did enjoy the historical scholarship which went into the book (Hey? I'm trying to find something positive here - to justify the enormous effort of reading it and NOT throwing it against the wall - OK?) - but unfortunately, there was just way too much of it, and a lot of it repetitive - and some wise pruning & editing would have improved the readability & enjoyability of the book enormously IMHO. On the positive side, I *loved* the framing device MG uses - it was probably the only thing which kept me plodding on through - I found myself rushing through in places, scanning a paragraph here, a footnote there, a half-page conversation 2 pages later.... just so I could get to the next series of the e-mails! Gentle does have fun with academia here - and it comes through well. Not much of a feminist theme in it either - although I didn't mind the descriptions of the grossness and inhumanity of medieval daily life, and appreciated the lack of emotion in those descriptions as being realistic & plausible. This is the "way it is" type of attitude, one of acceptance - no moral judgements are made by the characters, or the author (or her alter-ego Pierce) But despite the almost pornographic, and overly detailed & scholarly descriptions of war, famine, disease, Ash taking dumps etc - the relatively brief glimpses of sociopolitical/sexual/women's themes, or even of medieval women's lives e.g. the witch-burnings, the lives of the women of the baggage-trains, or the brief scenes of Ash confronting Florian's identity, or the Faris etc - were very disappointing in contrast. Some of these 'glimpses' appear to have been thrown in as an afterthought. Given the scholarship which obviously went into the book, I would have liked to learn more about women in that time-period, instead of the dimensions & designs of sallets & arquebuses, how granite crushes pauldrons (was 4 pages *really* necessary? ) , or the range of a siege-engine...and that list goes on, and on, and on - ad infinitum, ad nauseam... Initially, this 'brief glimpse' technique reminded me of the first book of the Holdfast Chronicles - where almost 3/4 of the book details the male characters' lives, thoughts etc, but with occasional, unemotional 'brief glimpses' of the horror & brutality of the fem's lives. It makes a feminist statement, by using understatement, so to speak. Unfortunately, Gentle doesn't attempt this at all. Overall - not one of Gentle's better works IMHO - I did like Golden Witchbreed I recall from some years ago, and Rats & Gargoyles more recently was so-so - but although I feel an enormous sense of achievement at actually finishing it (perhaps in 4 "bite-size" chunks it may read better?) - I wouldn't recommend it to others, and rather than smash the wall - it will top my pile to go for exchange/sale at the 2nd-hand bookstore next trip:) Cheers - Julieanne:) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:07:17 0100 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sharon Anderson wrote: "She accepts women as figures who act in traditional roles as long as they are overt and have the cojones to get away with it. She is totally freaked out when she finds Florian is really Floria, and comes completely undone when she catches her with another woman. Although she remarks that it is perfectly all right for Angelotti to be with other men." I read Ash response to Floria/n completely differently. She's astounded surprised when Floria reveals her true sex but mostly because she has been misled everybody for such a long time. Ash never suspected. But she unhesitantly backs Floria and if anything the surgeon becomes more important for her than before. She's stunned when she finds that Floria has sex with a woman but for me that's realistic. As far as I know female homosexuality was always more hidden/not thought possible than male homosexuality. It's reasonable to assume that Ash has encountered many gay men (the term seems very inappropriate for mercenaries) in the camp but never any lesbians. And weren't some of her customers when she prostituted herself at 10 or so mostly interested in her because they imagined her to be a boy? But I wouldn't describe Ash's reaction as "totally freaked out" or "completely undone" in both situation. If anything she becomes very protective of Floria. By the way, some time ago there was an article in Emma (the German equivalent to Ms.) about women from ca. 1500 to 1800 or so masquerading as men (soldiers, sailors, etc.). Apparently it was not uncommon (the author concluded it from the many instances in which women were (repeatedly) sentenced for pretending to be men and for marrying other women.) There were various motivations for these women, some simply wanted to be close to their men, others because they preferred male occupations/habits. For us it might be surprising (at least I wondered when I read the article) that these women could successfully hide their sex for so long (sometimes years, and these were only the discovered cases), but according to the author in a society in which men and women wear very different clothes, hairstyles, etc. people simply don't see the broad hips, the breasts, etc. if a woman wears male clothes. Have to run. More tomorrow. Petra ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:56:32 GMT From: Joell Smith Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >I read Ash response to Floria/n completely differently. She's >astounded surprised when Floria reveals her true sex but mostly >because she has been misled everybody for such a long time. Ash >never suspected. But she unhesitantly backs Floria and if anything >the surgeon becomes more important for her than before. I found the way Ash dealt with Floria/Florian to be kind of disturbing. One of the big things that made it hard for me to like Ash was the way that her whole attitude and perception of Florian changed when she found out he was female-bodied, and the way that she suddenly started messing up his name and pronouns. I mean, calling him "her" in front of the wrong people could've gotten him killed, or at the least cost him his place in the camp. I am of course completely biased as I am very active and personally involved in the FTM transgender community, but it amazed me that 5 years (is that right?) of habitually calling him Florian and using masculine pronouns would be completely undone in one night. Maybe on some level Ash did feel more protective of Florian, but her behavior and insensitivity put him at a great deal of risk. And it provided an example to the other person who knew the secret--I can't remember who it was off the top of my head--but if Ash had pet her foot down, said for Florian's safety, we can't screw this up, then he would've followed. Instead they are both constantly covering up mistakes and kind of commiserating about how weird the whole thing is. >By the way, some time ago there was an article in Emma (the >German equivalent to Ms.) about women from ca. 1500 to 1800 or >so masquerading as men (soldiers, sailors, etc.). Apparently it was >not uncommon (the author concluded it from the many instances in >which women were (repeatedly) sentenced for pretending to be >men and for marrying other women.) There were various motivations >for these women, some simply wanted to be close to their men, >others because they preferred male occupations/habits. For us it >might be surprising (at least I wondered when I read the article) that >these women could successfully hide their sex for so long >(sometimes years, and these were only the discovered cases), but >according to the author in a society in which men and women wear >very different clothes, hairstyles, etc. people simply don't see the >broad hips, the breasts, etc. if a woman wears male clothes. I'm going to have to see if I can't find a copy of that article. Sounds very interesting. And it is true that's it's not terrifically hard to pass as male, and it's even easier in places with stricter definitions of masculine and feminine signifiers. I have heard transgendered folks say that San Francisco is a great place to transition but a terrible place to pass--people there don't have the same assumptions about gender signifiers that people in places like the midwest do. I had no trouble whatsoever believing that a person like Florian would exist. I would've liked a little more info about what being able to pass as a man really meant for him, though. Was it really just a way to be a doctor and be able to have female sexual partners, or was there more to it? Interesting stuff. Take it easy, Joell ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:06:06 -0500 From: Marcie McCauley Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Ash - General To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU "I made it through the rape and face slashing, I got through the explicit slaughter of the cow as it screamed in pain and closed the book in disgust." I shared Joyce's initial reaction to the text and was particularly frustrated and disappointed having spent $32 on it as only the British edition was available to me. My bookmark sat at that point for a few weeks and I was sure that it would be removed completely before it progressed. Having never had such a negative reaction to a BDG text before, indeed having always enjoyed the selections to some extent, I was shocked. But one night I picked it up again, expecting dissatisfaction to slap me in the face a few paragraphs later, and I was surprised to find myself reacting very differently. A couple of days later I was even considering carrying it to work with me, despite the 1200 heavy pages and my 30-minute walk there and back, because I was so wrapped up in the story! I don't know if the novel's tone changed when Ash grew up to command her own company, or whether it was my own frame of mind which changed or my expectations which adjusted, but either way I was pleasantly surprised. "What did people think of the "frame"? I loved these emails. (Anna to Pierce: "*GOLEMS*???!!! In mediaeval Europe?!") I'm so curious how it will end." Like Petra and Julieanne, I loved the emails. The ever-shifting line between fiction and fact has always fascinated me and I'm excited to think of discovering secrets and new-truths in manuscripts which have been lost or forgotten. Although we know very little of these characters, I responded warmly to Pierce's faith in his subject, his fear and confusion when the veracity of his scholarship is thrown into question, and Anna's uncertainty and anxiety in reconsidering the traditional teachings of history. "Truth can be carried down to us through STORY." (stealing from the fifth part, but hey, no spoiler there ;)) "I am mesmerised by the character of Ash...simultaneously so charismatic while being so unprincipled" Like Jane, I am oddly fascinated by this woman. What troubles me, however, is not Ash as mercenary (for if I had to be a mercenary, I'd opt for her company!) but the issues surrounding the hiring of people to kill other people. "That's what we DO. We kill people we know, and we get killed. And don't tell me it's bloody stupid. There aren't any ways to get killed that are sensible." Ash's words to Anselm brush against my abhorrence of the mere idea of it. But I'm not as bothered by Ash's working for one side and then fighting the same side later as by the fact that this is a practice accepted and endorsed by society. However, I think I am expected to react to this. And the fact that it is possible to work for both sides certainly acts as a reminder that the line between two sides is much harder to find than wartime propaganda would have you believe. Maybe making it about "profit" brings you closer to an understanding of such atrocities than modern day rhetoric about intangible ideas and beliefs. I don't know. I don't like all aspects of Ash's character. Like Floria/n, I'm bored by the specifics of weapon-making and would gladly fetch the wine rather than feign interest in such a discussion. I wish she wasn't so drawn to Fernando despite his nastiness. And her lack of self-confidence and assurance is frustrating at times. But what of it? So she's not perfect. (Good thing - that wouldn't make for exciting reading at all!) And she lacks some of the values that are, in my modern mind, feminist. But somehow Gentle has managed to engage me in her narrative and provoke an emotional reaction, forcing me to think about the source of my irritation. And that, in my opinion, is a good thing. Despite my initial reaction to the book, I'm now engrossed in what translates to the second volume in the mass market editions with not a thought of giving up and no substantial complaints, except that there are not enough hours in the day for reading for pleasure. But that's nothing new to be sure! Marcie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:06:35 -0500 From: Marcie McCauley Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Ash - Floria/n To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I too am fascinated by Gentle's character Floria/n. It reminded me of two other novels: Jackie Kay's _Trumpet_ (the story of Joss Moody, jazz musician who masqueraded as a man) and Patricia Duncker's _The Doctor_ (a fictionalized account of James Miranda Barry's life). It was her revelation that contributed to my increased interest in the novel. I was intrigued by fleeting hints of her earlier life and found Ash's struggle to re-frame her understanding of her surgeon with this new knowledge interesting. I'm glad the issue wasn't portrayed as cut-and-dry, fading into the background as the plot progressed. And I can understand how it could be difficult for Ash and Godfrey, even knowing the stakes for Floria/n, to keep their pronouns straight given the extent to which gender shapes us all. I think it would be especially difficult given that it wasn't a secret strictly between Ash and Floria/n, but one shared with Godfrey. Ash, in discussing the situation with him could refer to the surgeon as 'she' aloud which I think makes it much harder to guard against mistakes than if she was simply dealing with the information internally and it was something she could never articulate. Her friendship also adds another dimension to Ash's character, a softer and more personable one I think. Although Ash does seem to feel some connection with the other women in the company, and is particularly intrigued by her conversations with the Faris and Onorata Rodiani, she is rather a solitary figure. I did find it interesting, however, that the Earl of Oxford remarked that she had many women in her camp. And her reply: "Of course I do. I execute for rape." That might not fit everybody's personal definition of a feminist perspective but it surely fits some! Marcie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:08:30 -0500 From: Marcie McCauley Subject: [*FSF-L*] What Makes It Feminist? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Admittedly, a part of me yearns for a definitive answer to the question of whether a novel is a feminist text; everything would be easier with a check-list. But the larger part of me nods furiously at Robin's discussion of "reader response theory", a term I've not heard before but which articulates principles I've talked willing ears off with for quite some time. Robin writes: "The approach is called reader response theory, and argues that different readers, based on their background, experiences, values, etc., can construct different "meanings" for the same text, or book." I find it much more interesting to explore why specific aspects of a novel provoke emotional responses (be they positive or negative) from readers than whether a book is objectively (assuming, for a moment, that there is such a state) 'good' or 'bad'. I'm always very intrigued by opinions that differ widely from my own because they force me (particularly if I know or respect their holder) to reconsider my own position and the source of my differing reaction. However, I am also often saddened by statements that denounce a book as being "of poor literary quality" as though such a statement can be made unequivocally, with the writer's ownself seemingly disconnected from their criticism. Nike writes: "... this would probably be my own way of categorising a book as feminist. Something that challenges my/a readers assumptions about the status of the feminine (or even of the masculine, perhaps?) not only in the culture depicted in the text, but also in my own." Lesley writes: "Isn't this precisely what makes a book feminist irrespective of the assigned gender of the protagonist - querying accepted ideas about masculinity / femininity / gender / sexual orientation?" Nike's and Lesley's comments echo my own opinion on the matter, both specifically in regards to what makes a text feminist and, more generally, what makes a book 'good'. This discussion has worked in the same way, demanding that I consider the elements of _Ash_ that fit my idea of a feminist novel and urging me to decide whether I would shelve her with Slonczewski, Tepper, or Russell. Fortunately I have all my fiction alphabetized: Tepper next to Thackeray, MZ Bradley next to Bronte and Boccaccio, and Griffith next to Barbara Gowdy and The Wind in the Willows. LOL - I suppose that might be the easy way out but so be it. If Robin or other list members could recommend some resources which explore "reader response theory", I'd be very interested. And if that's considered off-topic, please direct your suggestions to me offlist. Thanks in advance for any direction. Marcie, writing a mental note to search the M shelves for Maguire given the rapid approach of December ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:23:24 -0800 From: Cera Kruger Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Ash - General To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU As I have read all 1200 pages of this book, I put in a spoiler warning, since I cannot remember what character development was in the first book & what was in the rest of the book. I will not be mentioning specific examples of said character development... Marcie McCauley writes: >But one night I picked it up again, expecting dissatisfaction to slap me >in the face a few paragraphs later, and I was surprised to find myself >reacting very differently. A couple of days later I was even considering >carrying it to work with me, despite the 1200 heavy pages and my >30-minute walk there and back, because I was so wrapped up in the story! >I don't know if the novel's tone changed when Ash grew up to command her >own company, or whether it was my own frame of mind which changed or my >expectations which adjusted, but either way I was pleasantly surprised. I found the first few chapters of the book (I've read all 1200 pages) very difficult -- Ash as a victim is not pleasant to read. But on the other hand, those few chapters give so much *perspective* on Ash the mercenary captain, Ash the woman who can't let people close to her, Ash the woman who is desperately loving and loyal to her troops while knowing that being loving might get them all killed and thus she constantly suppresses that side of herself -- none of that would make sense for me without seeing her as a child. >But what of it? So she's not perfect. (Good thing - that wouldn't make >for exciting reading at all!) And she lacks some of the values that are, >in my modern mind, feminist. But somehow Gentle has managed to engage me >in her narrative and provoke an emotional reaction, forcing me to think >about the source of my irritation. And that, in my opinion, is a good >thing. I did find Ash a remarkably compelling and emotionally enjoyable character, despite realising that if I was cast into the world of the book I would have absolutely *nothing* to say to her. It's rare for me to love a character without a quiet wish that I could have them as a friend, but Ash belongs on that list. -- Cera -- Cera Kruger -++- diony@idiom.com -+- http://www.requiem.com -++- SFLAaE/BS "And it's alright if you hate that way / hate me cause I'm different / hate me cause I'm gay / Truth of the matter come around one day / so it's alright." -- Emily Saliers (Indigo Girls' _Shaming of the Sun_) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:26:31 -0800 From: Cera Kruger Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Ash To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Petra Mayerhofer writes: >About Ash's childhood. I cannot quite decide whether it is believable >that after running around uncared for as a toddler (is it possible that a >child survives that in a mercenary camp?), being raped with 6 and then >killing the rapists, being punished for that, etc. a person would be so >functional and "untwisted". I would say that it's realistic, yes. People can be 'functional' despite enormous amounts of trauma. And it's not as though she doesn't show any effects from that -- it plays out in a lot of her relationships with people. -- Cera -- Cera Kruger -++- diony@idiom.com -+- http://www.requiem.com -++- SFLAaE/BS "And it's alright if you hate that way / hate me cause I'm different / hate me cause I'm gay / Truth of the matter come around one day / so it's alright." -- Emily Saliers (Indigo Girls' _Shaming of the Sun_) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:51:57 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Ash, with some spoilers for the other volumes To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I finished *Ash* some time ago but didn't have time to post on it until now. Having read the entire British edition, I find it hard to say anything substantial about the book without including spoilers, so be warned. What a monumental tome! I am not used to reading for such lengths of time and making so little progress. The tightly packed pages and serious heft of the book gave me a physical sense of reading an epic story even when the text itself didn't. For the first volume, at least, the spell held. Like Jane Fletcher, I thought I was reading an alternate history until certain events made me realize that something much stranger was going on. Once the literal truth of the Eternal Twilight and the reality of the golems was established I became very curious about how things were going to turn out. It's unusual for me to be more interested in a book's plot than its characters or written style, but this was definitely the case with *Ash*. Even after finishing the book I'm not certain whether I would categorize it as science fiction or fantasy. The present-day scientists do their damnedest to explain it all away in terms of quantum physics and the many-worlds hypothesis. Having read some basic quantum theory, I recognize the science in *Ash* to be a series of junk interpretations of the real thing, but does that necessarily make it fantasy rather than just bad science fiction? Dunno. As far as Ash, the character, goes... I found her irritating. I agree entirely with Julieanne's comments regarding Ash's mistakes and abrasive personality and second her doubts about how Ash maintained the respect of her troops. Looking back on the entire book, I can remember only a single battle in which Ash prevailed, but I can't count how many times she engaged in hearty cursing and bravado. Gentle seems to be saying that what counts in a leader is an aggressive, posturing personality, not results. For some, that may be true, but it would sure drive me crazy. The second book, when Ash was brought to Carthage and imprisoned, was the only time I felt real sympathy for her. I was shocked and moved when she was beaten by the guards and miscarried in her cell. And her reaction to the death of Godfrey was unexpectedly profound. But that was it. Once she was free again, she returned to her flippant ways for the duration. There was some hint near the end of the siege of Dijon that she was losing her taste for war and beginning to fear the loss of friends, but the epilogue tells us that the alternate Asche is just as enthusiastic about battle and the military life as the original Ash was. Is Ash a role model? Sharon Anderson remarked that maybe the reverse is true, that Gentle intended Ash as a negative role model. Others have commented that her imperfections make her realistic. My feeling is that the character's changelessness, along with the occasional valedictory comments from the narrator ("She was quite genuinely not afraid of injury." "She is keen, uncomplicated as a blade; with that frightening smile that she wears when she goes into a fight..."), indicate that Ash is, indeed, a hero in the frame of the story, and that her heroism is closely tied to her warrior nature. Almost the last thing she says before the transformation of Burgundy is "I don't lose." When I read that, I thought "arrogant", not "heroic". I would never throw a book, but by the end of *Ash*, I was definitely exasperated. I found some of the other characters more intriguing than Ash herself. Floria/n, in particular, was a great opportunity for some exploration of gender roles. And Fernando, such a cad in the first book, does transform into a much more likeable person later on. I was frustrated, though, by the thinness of their development. I can only wish that Gentle had spent more time on character and less on the minutiae of point arrangement and the disposition of sallets. As it is, I have to imagine what I would have liked to have happened. Did anyone else hope that Ash and Florian would get together? Or, failing that, Ash and John de Vere? My feelings about the book's feminism are mixed. On the one hand, it makes an effort to show that Ash was not alone in achieving a leadership position as a woman. Joan of Arc is repeatedly mentioned as a predecessor; Ash gains special pleasure in meeting Onorata Rodiani; her main opponent is the Faris; Charles the Bold's wife Margaret is known as a formidable military commander; women soldiers are offhandedly mentioned many times over the course of the novel. So Ash is not a queen bee. And the problem of rape is clearly an important one -- both Ash and Onorata Rodiani kill for the first time in reaction to actual or attempted rapes, and Ash's policy of punishing rape with death leads more than the usual number of women to join her camp. On the other hand, the only solution the book proposes is reactive, not proactive: if you want to avoid being raped, you'd better learn to defend yourself. Apart from Floria/n, nearly all of the civilian women are portrayed as fussy, status-conscious weaklings. Of course, so are the civilian men. The division of the world into soldiers/non-soldiers is very explicit. One of the least plausible scenes in the book hinges on it: Ash's defusing of the situation in Carthage when a band of guards are about to rape her. She appeals to them as one soldier to another and somehow their resolve is broken. I didn't believe it for a moment. In that situation, the fact of her being a woman would never be less important than her military experience. That sums up my reaction to the book, I suppose. It is a romance of the military. And as such it fails for me, as a general reader and as a feminist. But at least I can say I read it, which with a book this long is saying something. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Coldplay -- Parachutes "...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