Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:22:36 -0800 From: Bridgett Torrence Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I've been waiting, but I can't wait any longer. :-) I did not like Babel 17, but I did find it disturbing. Perhaps that is good. I'm going to highlight a few of the things I found disturbing in hopes that you all can shed some light on those areas. First of all, I couldn't really get into the culture. The violence and lack of regard for human life really bothered me. I realize that, because one could continue on in a discorporate state, human "life" probably wasn't as important. In fact, the definition of life itself may differ from what I'm used to. Still, I just couldn't accept the characters' apathetic reactions to murder and other violent death. If that weren't enough, I became really confused when a character's emotional reactions were inconsistent with the world view I thought I understood them to have. For example, the Butcher's reaction to the death of the infant. I really didn't get that at all. The passage explaining the Butcher's reaction didn't make any sense to me. Can someone explain? As for Babel 17, the language itself, I didn't buy into the premise. Lee Ann says in a post on another topic: As sentient beings, I don't believe anything, including language, can take away our self-awareness and our innate understanding of "you" and "I". I believe infants develop this sense before developing language, whether that language be verbal or sign. Do you agree? If not, please explain. I'm interested. Also, the Butcher referred to himself in the third person. What does this indicate, if anything? Whether first person or third, it seems to me that the "person" is still there. I have no background in linguistics, so Iım really fascinated by the whole topic. The other thing I found really disturbing about this book was my inability to relate to the main characters. Usually, when a main character is female, I don't have any trouble relating to her. Even if I dislike her or her actions, the empathy is still there. However, I felt no connection with Rydra Wong. Did anyone else have this reaction? (I couldn't relate to the men, either.) The only character in the entire story I could relate to was the Baroness. What an eye opener! She hides behind fat and good manners, saying in essence, "Don't worry about those men and their weapons of mass destruction, dear; I've made a fabulous dinner!" I listen to NPR each evening while cooking dinner. Hmmm. Well, that's enough for now. Janice, I'm really looking forward to your opening comments! In your nomination, you describe the book as entertaining and insightful. I didn't find it particularly entertaining, but I'm really curious about the insights. I can't wait to hear how others perceived this book. Did I miss the point completely??? I did like the poetry. Disturbed and confused, Bridgett ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:06:04 -0800 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:22 AM 11/4/2002 -0800, Bridgett Torrence wrote: >First of all, I couldn't really get into the culture. The violence and lack >of regard for human life really bothered me. I realize that, because one >could continue on in a discorporate state, human "life" probably wasn't as >important. In fact, the definition of life itself may differ from what I'm >used to. Still, I just couldn't accept the characters' apathetic reactions >to murder and other violent death. If that weren't enough, I became really >confused when a character's emotional reactions were inconsistent with the >world view I thought I understood them to have. For example, the Butcher's >reaction to the death of the infant. I really didn't get that at all. The >passage explaining the Butcher's reaction didn't make any sense to me. Can >someone explain? > >As for Babel 17, the language itself, I didn't buy into the premise. Lee >Ann says in a post on another topic: > >or less what they think, however awkward >it may appear to non-speakers of that >language. If the language has no words >for concepts that become important to >their speakers, they either invent new >words or import them from other languages> > >As sentient beings, I don't believe anything, including language, can take >away our self-awareness and our innate understanding of "you" and "I". I >believe infants develop this sense before developing language, whether that >language be verbal or sign. Do you agree? If not, please explain. I'm >interested. I suspect so, although Whorfian-Hypothesis believers make attempts from time to time to argue that our language is primary. George Orwell use his NewSpeak to make it supposedly impossible to rebel or question the State, but it was predicated on NewThought, which is far more problematic. Human thought and perception seems to be an intricate orchestration and coordination between many independent agents within the brain, despite our naive perception of a uniform "consciousness" that is the ego. We run ourselves more like a committee than an autocracy but fool ourselves into thinking that every decision is a unique expression of splendid individuality. I think it's far harder to "change someone's mind" than the singular noun implies, and persuasion is more like propaganda, aimed toward capturing the rapt attention of at least one of the many inhabitants of our bodies in a manner that causes that part to outweigh the others. This is what creates "visceral" responses and may be what explains hypnosis, but the knowledge is so new that we are still discovering what the heck it all means. It's clear however, and I think both Delaney and Orwell understood this, that language can be used to obfuscate just as easily as it can be used to elucidate. Our current political rhetoric, which defines disabled recipients of social insurance as "malingerers" and unfortunate victims of corporate "downsizing" and systemic poverty and societal neglect of racial minorities as "welfare queens," which euphemizes tragic death and devastating destruction as "collateral damage," and which defines people we don't like as "terrorists" while those who objectively perform precisely equivalent acts are either "freedom fighters" or "heroes," is designed to make independent thought more difficult rather than to explain a complex situation clearly. These words only masquerade as argument, since the conclusions they argue for are already presupposed by the terms in which the argument is couched. Babel 17, I think, is designed to perform exactly the same functions as a speech by President Bush, but mystified to the point of absurdity by a fertile imagination. I'm not sure, when reading Delaney's works, whether one is supposed to laugh or cry. Maybe he intended us to do both. >Also, the Butcher referred to himself in the third person. What does this >indicate, if anything? Whether first person or third, it seems to me that >the "person" is still there. I have no background in linguistics, so Iım >really fascinated by the whole topic. Queen Elizabeth refers to herself in the third person plural. Does anyone suppose that she has no knowledge of her own selfhood? If so, "we" are not amused. A similar inclination to refer to oneself in the third person can be found in quite a few languages and cultures in the real world. It may be that these cultures value self-abnegation of it may be a mere rhetorical quirk. Mystifying the actual actor is a subtle way of avoiding responsibility; "mistakes were made," or "civilian casualties resulted" just sound ever so much better than "I goofed up" or "I killed an innocent bystander." >The other thing I found really disturbing about this book was my inability >to relate to the main characters. Usually, when a main character is female, >I don't have any trouble relating to her. Even if I dislike her or her >actions, the empathy is still there. However, I felt no connection with >Rydra Wong. Did anyone else have this reaction? (I couldn't relate to the >men, either.) Well, I find the same thing to be true of many Delaney characters. I think he does it on purpose. There's nothing like an alien mental process to convince one that one has been transported to another time and place. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:31:27 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi everyone. I'm glad to see that discussion has already begun! I'll post some responses in another message, after I've attempted to express my general feelings about the book. Most broadly -- I liked it. It's been about 10 years since my first reading of *Babel-17*, and I feared that a return visit would reveal weaknesses now glaring to my older and (debatably) wiser eyes. But as before I was swept along by the book's energy and invigorated by the author's enthusiasm for the new and strange, even if much of it did not appeal to my own personal taste. (The majority of the body modifications, for example, struck me as grotesque and wildly impractical.) Delany is an unabashed lover of cities and a seemingly fearless investigator of milieus and situations that most people shun. I find his books eye-opening just for that reason -- he's been places I probably will never go (like the porn theatres of Times Square) and he has interesting things to say about them. I appreciate his honesty and enthusiasm while keeping in mind that his approach to many issues, despite being considerate of feminism, is lacking awareness in certain ways. In *Babel-17*, the clearest example of what I mean is the awakening of Mollya to be the third member of Calli and Ron's triple. She has been chosen because she fits certain criteria for the other two and because she herself is sexually inclined toward a relationship with two men. It all works out (despite a short rocky patch), and Rydra congratulates herself on her cleverness. It's Slot-A fitting into Tab-B. That may work for Delany, but as a woman, the idea of being placed like a puzzle piece into a predefined relationship structure would make me feel degraded and objectified. But Mollya is perfectly happy with it. IMO, the author just doesn't "get it" here. A smaller objection regarding the book's feminism is that Rydra Wong is pretty much a "queen bee" whose primary relationships are all with men. Sexism is not addressed in the novel, it is assumed to be absent. Nevertheless, it is refreshing how Delany unselfconsciously places women in all positions of life: bureaucrats, bored wives, bioengineered wrestlers, fighter pilots, etc. A big strength of the book is its bending of gender roles, particularly with the male characters, many of whom are testosterone-powered hulks who are nevertheless very physically affectionate and concerned with relationships. Delany challenges the convention that to take on such female characteristics a man must "look the part", i.e. be effeminate in some way. He's a keen enough observer of real life that he knows how much variation there actually is in gender "performance", and he embraces that diversity. (His later novel, *Triton*, i.e. *Trouble on Triton*, takes the investigation of gender quite a bit further, into the realm of the baroque, not to say twisted.) I also thought the mental merging of Rydra and the Butcher, with its reverse penetration imagery, was fascinating, if a little troubling at the same time. The "I-You" conversation that leads up to it, which encapsulates the book's linguistic argument, was as others have pointed out a little too deterministic a reading of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of how language shapes the way we think. (A good overview for anyone who is curious is at http://www.angelfire.com/journal/worldtour99/sapirwhorf.html ) But I thought it was interesting how difficult it was for me to perform a quick translation of the Butcher's misuse of "you" and "I" and grasp what he was really saying. I almost felt that this brain exercise was the real point of the passage, above and beyond any deeper message about subjectivity and morality. This is a busy book, full of characters, incidents and ideas. Given its brevity, that means that many of these elements are sketched rather than detailed, but the book's core theme of communication, reaching out to the Other and trying to understand, comes through loud and clear. *Babel-17* is far from a perfect book, but it is challenging and worthwhile. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: Coldplay -- A Rush of Blood to the Head "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:43:45 -0800 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 08:31 PM 11/4/2002 -0500, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >Most broadly -- I liked it. It's been about 10 years since my first reading >of *Babel-17*, and I feared that a return visit would reveal weaknesses now >glaring to my older and (debatably) wiser eyes. But as before I was swept >along by the book's energy and invigorated by the author's enthusiasm for >the new and strange, even if much of it did not appeal to my own personal >taste. (The majority of the body modifications, for example, struck me as >grotesque and wildly impractical.) I didn't think that in context. The Rissa Kerguelen series by F.M. Busby also has wild body mods. They exist primarily just because they *can* be done. Even in our own time, the people who are into these things push the limits of what can be done safely. I know that there exists an extensive pornography of extreme body modifications, hinted at in the Well World series by Jack Chalker, so if Delaney posits a time when these things are possible, I can well imagine that there will be people who will leap at the chance. >Delany is an unabashed lover of cities and a seemingly fearless >investigator of milieus and situations that most people shun. I find his >books eye-opening just for that reason -- he's been places I probably will >never go (like the porn theatres of Times Square) and he has interesting >things to say about them. I appreciate his honesty and enthusiasm while >keeping in mind that his approach to many issues, despite being considerate >of feminism, is lacking awareness in certain ways. His women often leave quite a bit to be desired for me, at least. Perhaps it has something to do with his own sexuality. I found the central character in Triton to be far more believable, a man who decides that he knows how to be a better woman than all the rest of the women on Triton. This didn't strike me as at all strange and "she" was one of his better "female" characters. >In *Babel-17*, the clearest example of what I mean is the awakening of >Mollya to be the third member of Calli and Ron's triple. She has been >chosen because she fits certain criteria for the other two and because she >herself is sexually inclined toward a relationship with two men. It all >works out (despite a short rocky patch), and Rydra congratulates herself on >her cleverness. It's Slot-A fitting into Tab-B. That may work for Delany, >but as a woman, the idea of being placed like a puzzle piece into a >predefined relationship structure would make me feel degraded and >objectified. But Mollya is perfectly happy with it. IMO, the author just >doesn't "get it" here. Again, this may have something to do with the "plug-compatible" polymorphous sexuality exhibited by some gay men. Perhaps he tossed a coin to determine the sex of the character after writing the novel. >A smaller objection regarding the book's feminism is that Rydra Wong is >pretty much a "queen bee" whose primary relationships are all with men. >Sexism is not addressed in the novel, it is assumed to be absent. In Triton, the dominant sexualities are slightly bisexual but with a strong preference for the opposite sex. All other sexualities are fringe orientations, although not thought particularly odd. >Nevertheless, it is refreshing how Delany unselfconsciously places women in >all positions of life: bureaucrats, bored wives, bioengineered wrestlers, >fighter pilots, etc. I really do think he tosses coins... Most of his characters seem like male clones who happen to have breasts if randomly assigned as females. >A big strength of the book is its bending of gender roles, particularly >with the male characters, many of whom are testosterone-powered hulks who >are nevertheless very physically affectionate and concerned with >relationships. Delany challenges the convention that to take on such female >characteristics a man must "look the part", i.e. be effeminate in some way. >He's a keen enough observer of real life that he knows how much variation >there actually is in gender "performance", and he embraces that diversity. >(His later novel, *Triton*, i.e. *Trouble on Triton*, takes the >investigation of gender quite a bit further, into the realm of the baroque, >not to say twisted.) Indeed. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 01:28:52 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:22 AM 11/4/2002 -0800, Bridgett Torrence wrote: >First of all, I couldn't really get into the culture. The violence and lack >of regard for human life really bothered me. On whose part? Ver Dorco and his weapons experiments were fairly gruesome, it's true, but I thought that was a satire on the mentality of R&D experts during a cold war (*Dr. Strangelove* came out about a year before this book was written). Rydra and the Butcher (not coincidentally Ver Dorco's son) are, by the end of the book, planning an end to the whole heinous, bloody conflict. IMO, this is fundamentally an idealistic, ridiculously heroic story about peace. >If that weren't enough, I became really >confused when a character's emotional reactions were inconsistent with the >world view I thought I understood them to have. For example, the Butcher's >reaction to the death of the infant. I really didn't get that at all. The >passage explaining the Butcher's reaction didn't make any sense to me. Can >someone explain? This part of the story was confusing to me, also. Were we supposed to think that the Butcher's underlying personality and memories were trying to break free of the straitjacket of Babel-17? That he was trying to address a sense of loneliness that he could not consciously understand? Not sure. Pretty clumsy, I thought. >As sentient beings, I don't believe anything, including language, can take >away our self-awareness and our innate understanding of "you" and "I". I >believe infants develop this sense before developing language, whether that >language be verbal or sign. Do you agree? If not, please explain. I'm >interested. Normal human children can recognize their own reflections in the mirror at about a year old, if not sooner. Most are beginning to speak at about the same time. As far as I know, there is no proven relation between the two events, but it's not been disproven either. Interestingly, there is repeated mirror imagery in the novel, starting with the first chapter and Rydra's meeting with General Forester ("She turned to him (as the figure in the mirror behind the counter caught sight of him and turned away), stood up from the stool, smiled.") and ending with Rydra's merging with the Butcher in Part 4 ("Mirrored in him, she saw growing in the light of her, a darkness within words, only noise -- growing! And cried out at its name and shape.") What does it all mean? Any guesses? >Also, the Butcher referred to himself in the third person. What does this >indicate, if anything? Whether first person or third, it seems to me that >the "person" is still there. I have no background in linguistics, so Iım >really fascinated by the whole topic. The Butcher used the third person ("he", "she", "it", "they"), but not to refer to himself. He completely avoided self-referential pronouns, even possessives for his own body. So it's "the brain" rather than "my brain". It reminds me of the lack of possessive pronouns on Anarres in *The Dispossessed*; a compare and contrast study of Delany and Le Guin could be fascinating. >The other thing I found really disturbing about this book was my inability >to relate to the main characters. Usually, when a main character is female, >I don't have any trouble relating to her. Even if I dislike her or her >actions, the empathy is still there. However, I felt no connection with >Rydra Wong. Did anyone else have this reaction? (I couldn't relate to the >men, either.) I can't say I related to the characters; they were too fragmentary. But at times I related to the narrative voice quite intensely. The observation of body language and minor cues, the veering away from the big story to intimate scenes like Rydra's conversation with Ron in Part 2 or moments in the life of the repressed (but improving) Danil D. Appleby, said a lot to me. >The only character in the entire story I could relate to was the Baroness. >What an eye opener! She hides behind fat and good manners, saying in >essence, "Don't worry about those men and their weapons of mass destruction, >dear; I've made a fabulous dinner!" I listen to NPR each evening while >cooking dinner. Hmmm. The Baroness was more sympathetic than that, wasn't she? She gets some of the book's great lines: "Oh, the bright young people who come here, with their bright, lively imaginations. They do nothing all day long but think of ways to kill. It's a terribly placid society, really. But why shouldn't it be? All its aggressions are vented from nine to five. Still, I think it does something to our minds." I think she's on to something. ;-) Thanks for your comments, Bridgett. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: Coldplay -- A Rush of Blood to the Head "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:19:11 -0800 From: Bridgett Torrence Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Janice E. Dawley wrote: > I appreciate his honesty and enthusiasm while keeping in mind that his > approach to many issues, despite being considerate > of feminism, is lacking awareness in certain ways. > > In *Babel-17*, the clearest example of what I mean is the awakening of > Mollya to be the third member of Calli and Ron's triple. She has been > chosen because she fits certain criteria for the other two and because she > herself is sexually inclined toward a relationship with two men. It all > works out (despite a short rocky patch), and Rydra congratulates herself on > her cleverness. It's Slot-A fitting into Tab-B. That may work for Delany, > but as a woman, the idea of being placed like a puzzle piece into a > predefined relationship structure would make me feel degraded and > objectified. But Mollya is perfectly happy with it. IMO, the author just > doesn't "get it" here. I see your point and heartily agree with your response, but my impression was very different. When reading the segment, I didn't consider how one would feel "being placed like a puzzle piece into a predefined relationship structure." Instead, I assumed that the sexual/emotional relationship was secondary to the working relationship; that is, that the sexual aspect was more of a side effect of working so closely together. It didn't seem odd to me that a "triple" would be the inevitable outcome of a psychic interface (if that's the term) such as the ear/eye/nose. I think of the relationships between actors and their co-stars, between artists and their models (the pre-raphaelites come to mind) and it all seems very reasonable. In fiction, we have the sexual relationships between Anne McCaffrey's dragonriders (determined by dragons, not humans) and Laurell K. Hamilton's triumvate (I think that's what she calls it), though Hamilton's may not be the best example. Her triple would be interesting if she would only finish the porn interlude and get back to the story! Anyhow, I'm sure there are other examples in fiction of successful sexual relationships which are entered into for reasons other than love. Can anyone think of some? It also didn't seem odd to me that Mollya had no objection to Rydra's matchmaking. I was convinced, unquestioningly, that the people of the Babel-17 universe felt very defined by their jobs, especially those in Transport. Heck, even prostitutes continue their profession after becoming discorporate. And Mollya did choose to go to the morgue rather than become a discorporate being, which indicated (to me) her willingness to be brought back as part of another triple. If it were me, I would also feel "degraded and objectified", but I'm not sure all women would agree with us. After all, there seem to be plenty of women who approve of arranged marriages. > A big strength of the book is its bending of gender roles, particularly > with the male characters, many of whom are testosterone-powered hulks who > are nevertheless very physically affectionate and concerned with > relationships. I'm really glad you mention this, because I have to admit I completely dismissed the Butcher when he was introduced. I'd been reading the Jaran archive, which includes a great discussion of the romance genre, and I read Babel-17 with those stereotypical romance characterizations still in mind. When the Butcher walked onto the set (so to speak), I just assumed he was the romantic love interest. Here's the scene: "The second man moved back and she saw the third who still stood at the rear. Taller, and more powerfully built than the others, he wore only a breech... Something about him was brutal enough to make her glance away. Something was graceful enough to make her look back." Sounds like a romance novel to me! :-) > I also thought the mental merging of Rydra and the Butcher, with its > reverse penetration imagery, was fascinating, if a little troubling at the > same time. How so? > This is a busy book, full of characters, incidents and ideas. Given its > brevity, that means that many of these elements are sketched rather than > detailed, but the book's core theme of communication, reaching out to the > Other and trying to understand, comes through loud and clear. *Babel-17* is > far from a perfect book, but it is challenging and worthwhile. That is a wonderful description. Bridgett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:54:52 -0800 From: Bridgett Torrence Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > The Rissa Kerguelen > series by F.M. Busby also has wild body mods. They > exist primarily just because they *can* be done. To gestalt a bit, I was thinking about Rissa a while back when we were discussing SF Mothers. Did anyone else notice a lack of offspring in Babel-17? The Baron is the only one I recall who had children, and I certainly wouldn't consider his parenting an example of nurturing behavior! Do you think a lack of parental nurturing was typical of parents in the Babel-17 universe? What did you make of the teenaged troops? If I lived in Delany's world, I doubt I would have children. Of course, I sometimes doubt the wisdom of it in this world, too. > I really do think he tosses coins... Most > of his characters seem like male clones > who happen to have breasts if randomly > assigned as females. I agree. Nicely put. Still, even though male is normative here, it is refreshing to have a SF book set in space without the usual Space Bimbo or 7 of 9 type sex object. I would rather read about male women than sex objects. The Triton comments were interesting. I may have to read that one, as well. Bridgett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:03:48 -0500 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:19 AM 11/5/2002 -0800, Bridgett Torrence wrote: >It didn't seem odd to me that a "triple" would be the inevitable outcome of >a psychic interface (if that's the term) such as the ear/eye/nose. I think >of the relationships between actors and their co-stars, between artists and >their models (the pre-raphaelites come to mind) and it all seems very >reasonable. Interesting, but I think the kind of proximity you're talking about is just as likely to result in intense dislike or aversion. Which might explain why so much thought is put into "psyche indices" and personality matching from the beginning. They don't want a crew falling to pieces mid-voyage. I guess my problem really is that this model of compatibility assumes that a happy and productive long-term relationship must be a sexual one. I just don't think that's true. >In fiction, we have the sexual relationships between Anne McCaffrey's >dragonriders (determined by dragons, not humans) and Laurell K. Hamilton's >triumvate (I think that's what she calls it), though Hamilton's may not be >the best example. Her triple would be interesting if she would only finish >the porn interlude and get back to the story! Anyhow, I'm sure there are >other examples in fiction of successful sexual relationships which are >entered into for reasons other than love. Can anyone think of some? Actually, I can't. But maybe I don't understand what you mean. I get the Anne McCaffrey reference, though I'd quibble about whether all the human pairings that resulted were "successful". Some were pretty dysfunctional when not overwhelmed by dragon passion. I've never read any Hamilton. What's the story with her triumvirates? >It also didn't seem odd to me that Mollya had no objection to Rydra's >matchmaking. I was convinced, unquestioningly, that the people of the >Babel-17 universe felt very defined by their jobs, especially those in >Transport. I would agree with this, though I'm not sure that's any different from a person of the 20th century who feels defined by their economic class and their "blue collar" or "white collar" job. >Heck, even prostitutes continue their profession after becoming >discorporate. Was she a prostitute before discorporating? I didn't see that. >If it were me, I would also feel "degraded and objectified", but I'm not >sure all women would agree with us. After all, there seem to be plenty of >women who approve of arranged marriages. Well, there's no arguing with that. Good point. > > A big strength of the book is its bending of gender roles, particularly > > with the male characters, many of whom are testosterone-powered hulks who > > are nevertheless very physically affectionate and concerned with > > relationships. > >I'm really glad you mention this, because I have to admit I completely >dismissed the Butcher when he was introduced. I'd been reading the Jaran >archive, which includes a great discussion of the romance genre, and I read >Babel-17 with those stereotypical romance characterizations still in mind. >When the Butcher walked onto the set (so to speak), I just assumed he was >the romantic love interest. Here's the scene: > >"The second man moved back and she saw the third who still stood at the >rear. Taller, and more powerfully built than the others, he wore only a >breech... Something about him was brutal enough to make her glance away. >Something was graceful enough to make her look back." > >Sounds like a romance novel to me! :-) Heh. Yeah, it was pretty obvious where their relationship was headed. But surprisingly there was no actual sex -- it was all cerebral, and intimately tied to the book's theme of communication. I guess it could be called "brain sex". (more below on that) Apart from the Butcher, the other hulk I had in mind was Calli -- a big ugly galoot who's still mourning his Number One and who gets some pretty insightful dialogue from time to time. > > I also thought the mental merging of Rydra and the Butcher, with its > > reverse penetration imagery, was fascinating, if a little troubling at the > > same time. > >How so? I'm a sucker for telepathy, I guess. The blurring of boundaries and mixing of two minds is such an interesting idea (though prone to melodrama). In this case, their two ways of thinking complemented one another -- the Butcher's action-oriented and Rydra's thought- and language-oriented. Then there's the one thing they have in common: Babel-17. This symmetry, this metaphorical mirror image, allows Rydra to see her true, complete self at last and to realize the effect the language has had on her. This idea of coming to know yourself by seeing yourself reflected in another could be seen as a statement about human social behavior, about constructed reality, about signs and symbols... On the level of prose poetry, it intimates a deeper truth about the interrelation of "I" and "You". I'm not sure I am expressing myself very well, but the scene still fascinates me. At the same time, it was troubling because there was more than a hint of rape to it. Rydra doesn't ask, she just jumps in, and the Butcher's experience is (mental) pain. He cries, he howls, he says "You are so big inside me I will break." Even if metaphorical, this is a bit disturbing. It's getting much too late, so I'm going to send this now. Anyone else want to jump in? Feel free to completely ignore my babbling and just tell us what you thought! ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: Coldplay -- A Rush of Blood to the Head "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 03:57:03 -0800 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 12:03 AM 11/8/2002 -0500, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >At 10:19 AM 11/5/2002 -0800, Bridgett Torrence wrote: >>In fiction, we have the sexual relationships between Anne McCaffrey's >>dragonriders (determined by dragons, not humans) and Laurell K. Hamilton's >>triumvate (I think that's what she calls it), though Hamilton's may not be >>the best example. Her triple would be interesting if she would only finish >>the porn interlude and get back to the story! Anyhow, I'm sure there are >>other examples in fiction of successful sexual relationships which are >>entered into for reasons other than love. Can anyone think of some? > >Actually, I can't. But maybe I don't understand what you mean. I get the >Anne McCaffrey reference, though I'd quibble about whether all the human >pairings that resulted were "successful". Some were pretty dysfunctional >when not overwhelmed by dragon passion. I've never read any Hamilton. >What's the story with her triumvirates? It's part of her depiction of vampires and werewolves, among *many* other magical creatures, as being horny and kinky both, with sex clubs existing for the sake of the connoisseurs of the most delicate perversions, or "alternative sexualities" as the politically correct might put it. Anita Blake is the proud middle of what might be termed a menage a trois if Laurell Hamilton didn't want to use another, and logically silly, since trium virum means "three men," word to describe what is essentially old hat. The boys, of course, are not "really" gay. In one of her adventures, she has public sex with her two lovers, one a werewolf and the other a vampire, to the general applause and acclaim of all the spectators. The undead are particularly valued as "bottoms" in sado-masochistic sex, since one can perform incredible acts of violence on them without permanent harm. "Triumvirate" is her latest word for what starts out as one woman with two lovers who is reluctant to "make up her mind, pick up on one and leave the other behind," to paraphrase the old Lovin' Spoonful song. The longer this series goes on, the kinkier it gets. The latest scoop is that Anita is a necromancer, and that her simultaneous sexual coupling with the undead and the werewolf raises her magical/psychic power to unheard of heights, sort of like the Great Rite with flourishes, male / female / male -- undead immortal / "mortal" / shapeshifter, the mind boggles. But she's in *love* with both of these guys, so that makes it alright, of course. "Torn between two lovers, feeling like a fool, Loving both of you is breaking all the rules" - Mary MacGregor It's interesting that another SF universe (written by a man) also assumes "arranged" sexual relationships, the Joe Haldeman Forever War series. In this world, soldiers are expected to have sex with each other in strict rotation, with male and female pairings versus female pairs and male pairs being entirely random. This was supposed to promote unit cohesiveness but not attachment, as with the homosexual warriors of the Sacred Band of Thebes and the Spartans, who both reasoned that a man would be ashamed to display cowardice where his lover would see and would fight even more fiercely to avenge his death. How handy to have regular sex arranged for one like the daily paper, and with as little commitment. I seem to recall a Heinlein story in which people wear privacy garments that conceal their sex and arrange sexual encounters among themselves with little or no regard for what lies beneath their clothes. Utterly anonymous, at least to start. Presumably one would discover at least the gender of one's partner at some point. And now that I think about it, the "Bond Girls" are sort of plug-compatible replacements of each other, supplied by a munificent providence for the comfort of Mr. Bond between mayhem and alarums. "007" has always inhabited a sort of near-future sci/fi world, although calling Bond SF is a bit of a stretch. But weird sexual relationships have been a staple of science fiction for quite a while, Heinlein used them constantly in his randy old age, but also proposed that "the door dilated" was a wonderful way to start out a story because it established the fact that one had left one's comfortable world of certainty and entered Wonderland in a trice. Stranger in a Strange Land was only the start for him. It may be that Delaney uses them here in part to establish an autre future society, although he probably *also* has an axe to grind about acceptance of non-heterosexual, non-missionary, non-exclusive, couplings. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:12:18 -0500 From: "Deborah A. Oosterhouse" Organization: DAO Editorial Services Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I was very much intrigued by the language Babel-17, and I'm not sure yet how believable or not I find it. Responding to some of the recent posts on the book: Bridgett wrote: > For example, the Butcher's reaction to the death of the infant. I really > didn't get that at all. The passage explaining the Butcher's reaction didn't > make any sense to me. Can someone explain? And Janice responded: > This part of the story was confusing to me, also. Were we supposed to think > that the Butcher's underlying personality and memories were trying to break > free of the straitjacket of Babel-17? That he was trying to address a sense > of loneliness that he could not consciously understand? Not sure. Pretty > clumsy, I thought. I thought that Rydra had determined that it was the Butcher's way of trying to have someone around who spoke his language and who understood him in a way no one else could. But when he found out that Rydra also knew Babel-17, and she taught him the finer points of English pronouns, he didn't need to raise his "own" child in order to have a companion. What I found puzzling/confusing/problematic about the Butcher and Babel-17 was the amnesia part and how completely whatever the Invaders did to him cut him off from a large portion of his own brain. Presumably when they released him, he only spoke Babel-17 and needed to re-learn English in order to communicate with other English speakers? Or did they implant him with some form of English that left out the first-person pronouns? I don't think that was made clear. It seems to me that if he learned how to speak English again from other English speakers, he would have learned the first-person pronouns along with the rest. Unless the Babel-17 language actually prevented him from learning them? But then how would Rydra be able to teach him? I guess what I find most interesting about Babel-17 (that language) is that is seems to be almost a sentient language, that it takes on a life of its own in the minds of the people who use it. It's not simply a means for someone to communicate one's thoughts, it actually creates another being within that person that has its own thoughts and behaviors. On another issue, Bridgett wrote: > Do you think a lack of parental nurturing was typical of parents in the > Babel-17 universe? What did you make of the teenaged troops? > > If I lived in Delany's world, I doubt I would have children. Of course, I > sometimes doubt the wisdom of it in this world, too. That lack of nurturing did seem typical, probably as a result of the extended war. Weren't Rydra's parents killed when she was very young, or at least died as a result of some embargo or other? And it seems to me as well that the kids in the platoon are, for all intents, orphans -- either their parents are physically dead or in some other way unable to take care of them. Even the Baroness seems rather a distant mother, not really having a clear idea how long it had been since they "lost" Nyles -- but I could see this as more a self-defense mechanism in that face of losing her only child. I wonder how much she knew about what happened to him and what he was doing? Very interesting and complex book. Thanks for recommending it, Janice. Deborah ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 19:48:13 -0800 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel 17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I'm enjoying the conversation around this little book. I was also put off by the romance with the Butcher. It just seemed so predictable. One thing I'm having a hard time figuring out is the recorded communication in Babel 17 that's recorded at the time of the attacks. This is the source of Rydra's study, how she figures out the language. However, by the end of the story we learn that Babel 17 is a language specially invented for the Butcher, and he's so lonely because nobody else speaks that language. In fact, I think the Butcher's attempt to save the unborn child was implied to be a plan to raise this child to speak that language, so that he wouldn't be so alone. Did I misunderstand this part? If not, then what was behind the communication at the attacks? Who was he talking to? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:54:49 -0800 From: Bridgett Torrence Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Janice E. Dawley wrote: > I'm a sucker for telepathy, I guess. The blurring of boundaries and mixing > of two minds is such an interesting idea (though prone to melodrama). In > this case, their two ways of thinking complemented one another -- the > Butcher's action-oriented and Rydra's thought- and language-oriented. Then > there's the one thing they have in common: Babel-17. This symmetry, this > metaphorical mirror image, allows Rydra to see her true, complete self at > last and to realize the effect the language has had on her. This idea of > coming to know yourself by seeing yourself reflected in another could be > seen as a statement about human social behavior, about constructed reality, > about signs and symbols... On the level of prose poetry, it intimates a > deeper truth about the interrelation of "I" and "You". I'm not sure I am > expressing myself very well, but the scene still fascinates me. Wow! What a great analysis! I went back and read the passages again but I have to admit that I find your passionate response more moving than Delany's prose. I think you express yourself very well, Janice. I wish I got as much out of this book as you seem to, though. Jennifer Krauel wrote: >One thing I'm having a hard time figuring out is the recorded communication >in Babel 17 that's recorded at the time of the attacks. This is the source >of Rydra's study, how she figures out the language. However, by the end of >the story we learn that Babel 17 is a language specially invented for the >Butcher, and he's so lonely because nobody else speaks that language. In >fact, I think the Butcher's attempt to save the unborn child was implied to >be a plan to raise this child to speak that language, so that he wouldn't >be so alone. Did I misunderstand this part? If not, then what was behind >the communication at the attacks? Who was he talking to? My understanding is that the Butcher was talking to the TW-55 type spies that his father, the Baron, created. Starting on page 214 of my copy, it says: (Butcher speaking) "Every spy from Armsedge can receive readio commands through a preestablished key. Grafted under my medulla is a hyperstasis transmitter most of whose parts are electroplastiplasms. No matter how complexed the future spies became, I was still in primary control of the whole fleet of them. Over th past years, several thousand have been released into Invader territory. Up until the time I was captured, we made a very effective force." It goes on to explain that the Butcher was captured by the invaders, given amnesia, and implanted with Babel-17. Rydra explains: "Babel-17 as a language contains a preset program for the Butcher to become a criminal and saboteur... While thinking in Babel-17 it becomes perfectly logical to try and destroy your own ship and then blot out the fact with self-hypnosis so you won't discover what you're doing and try and stop yourself." I have a question about this: Didn't the Butcher communicate with the spies using Babel-17? If so, how did the spies become implanted with Babel-17? And if the spies did "speak" Babel-17, why was the Butcher so concerned with teaching the infant the language? If the spies had Babel-17, then the Butcher *did* have someone else to communicate with... I'm confused. Bridgett ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:20:18 -0800 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 07:54 AM 11/10/2002 -0800, Bridgett Torrence wrote: >It goes on to explain that the Butcher was captured by the invaders, given >amnesia, and implanted with Babel-17. Rydra explains: > >"Babel-17 as a language contains a preset program for the Butcher to become >a criminal and saboteur... While thinking in Babel-17 it becomes perfectly >logical to try and destroy your own ship and then blot out the fact with >self-hypnosis so you won't discover what you're doing and try and stop >yourself." > >I have a question about this: Didn't the Butcher communicate with the spies >using Babel-17? If so, how did the spies become implanted with Babel-17? >And if the spies did "speak" Babel-17, why was the Butcher so concerned with >teaching the infant the language? If the spies had Babel-17, then the >Butcher *did* have someone else to communicate with... I'm confused. As am I. A "language" which nobody else speaks seems somewhat less than worthless, unless the "language" is actually a mental disease, which is what this passage describes. Perhaps what is being said is that the Butcher received instructions via this implanted "thought process," which sounds suspiciously more and more like psychotic fugue, and wanted to teach the baby this same distorted process because, other than his own "handlers," who only talked *to* him, there was no one to talk *with*, even if that communication was psychotic in nature. Could this be a metaphor for the existential loneliness of mental illness, which separates the sufferer from the rest of humanity? Certainly the grandiosity of the Butcher, who has "thousands" of minions under his absolute and direct control, sounds as much crazed as it does like an efficient way to organize a cadre of saboteurs. But how can Rydra learn from "intercepted" communications if nobody actually speaks the language? if the disease is externally induced, as indeed many believe some forms of mental illness to be, perhaps she can be seen as perceiving what drives people mad in her own society, and recognizing what effect this has had to her own mental process. This sort of enhanced self-awareness is common to mystics who pierce the veil of everyday appearance and penetrate to an underlying reality. Is Rydra realizing her Buddha-nature here? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:57:41 -0500 From: "Deborah A. Oosterhouse" Organization: DAO Editorial Services Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Babel-17 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > But how can Rydra learn from "intercepted" communications if nobody > actually speaks the language? if the disease is externally induced, as indeed > many believe some forms of mental illness to be, perhaps she can be seen as > perceiving what drives people mad in her own society, and recognizing what > effect this has had to her own mental process. > > This sort of enhanced self-awareness is common to mystics who pierce the veil > of everyday appearance and penetrate to an underlying reality. > > Is Rydra realizing her Buddha-nature here? I haven't really thought about the Buddha-nature question much here, but I do find interesting the idea that Rydra is "perceiving what drives people mad in her own society" especially as it is frequently mentioned in the book that Rydra has a gift of being able to understand and communicate with a wide variety of people. She can even talk with the discorporates without all the machinery usually needed for living persons to speak with them. Not only does her gift cross language boundaries, or even across people on opposite sides of a war, but also through to people in completely different states of being (discorporate, mad). Perhaps it is this unusually strong perception that also allows her to eventually recognize the nature of the problems that Babel-17 is creating in her own head and, ultimately, to free both herself and the Butcher from those effects. Perhaps there is a bit of Buddha-nature going on here in the transcendence aspects. In connection with Rydra's communication with the discorporates, I have another question. When I read about her method of translating their messages into Basque so that she would keep the message in her head, it seemed very familiar. Does anyone remember another story in which this sort of method was used in order to facilitate communications that were normally very difficult? Deborah