Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 20:41:08 EDT From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG = GRASS To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It has been awhile since I read this. I loved the creepy feeling of slowly realizing that the mounts weren't horses and the foxes weren't foxes. I also very much enjoyed the female lead having a role other than falling in permanent love with the male, the struggle she had with that, and then going on to a larger life. I've joined the Lit group, so not sure if anybody is left here... Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:43:18 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG = GRASS To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Hi Madrone, As you mentioned, the Grass discussion should happen over on the new "lit" list. If anyone hasn't signed up for it yet now would be an excellent time. For more info about joining the lit list, see Jennifer At 08:41 PM 05/02/99 -0400, you wrote: >It has been awhile since I read this. I loved the creepy feeling of slowly >realizing that the mounts weren't horses and the foxes weren't foxes. I also >very much enjoyed the female lead having a role other than falling in >permanent love with the male, the struggle she had with that, and then going >on to a larger life. > >I've joined the Lit group, so not sure if anybody is left here... > >Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:30:45 GMT From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Tepper's GRASS To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'd LOVE to talk about GRASS: it is one of my absolutely favorite novels in the universe, and while I like, enjoy, or love a good deal of Tepper's work in general, I think this novel is my FAVORITE. I'd love to post my recent reading, but *sniff*, it's been ALL related to school (i.e. students writing that I have to read, ok I did assign it but still). So, GRASS..... SPOILER ALERT * * * * * * * * * * * * I remember the first time I saw it in hardback, I somehow did not pick it up (economy, the first page or two didn't grab me), but then I got it in paperback (I'm a completist what can I say), and it totally hooked me. Ilove Marjorie Westriding (although after a lot of years of reading and thinking about her, I can see she might be a bit of a difficult person to live with), I love what Tepper has done in extrapolating a future Earth society dominated by one religion (an evolved Church of the Latter Day Saints), and I especially love the planet GRASS and her alien lifeforms, and the Mystery that Marjorie solves. I did a presentation on it (my first Real Presentation) analyzing its epic structure--in fact, I argued that the novel is a feminist epic re/vision of DUNE. A lot of the narrative structure (that long intro that is the 'praise' of Grass is what most epics start with) and characters (the nobility/commons social hierarchy that she deconstructs) and plot are very much like a traditional epic, but by putting a woman, a mother (and having her quest be the rescue of her daughter from the Underworld), I'd say it's also profoundly feminist. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:04:22 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Next BDG discussion (Grass) starts Monday on new list Comments: To: fsflist To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Next Monday we begin discussion of our May BDG selection, Sheri Tepper's _Grass_. Please note this discussion will take place on the new FeministSF-Lit list, not the original list. I am cross-posting this reminder to both lists, but the discussion itself will only be on the new list. If you haven't signed up for it yet, please do! See for information. Before then I thought it might be helpful to review a few points about the discussion. As I've said before, these are just rules we made up. If you have ideas for improvement, or even just complaints, please email me! Stay tuned for info about a fabulous updated BDG web site. The book discussion group's objective is to focus discussion on a particular book at a particular time to get as many people participating and enjoying the group as possible. It's not meant to change the nature of the list, just focus the discussion. New book discussions begin monthly on the first Monday of the month, directly on the FeminstSF-lit list. Other works can of course be discussed at the same time on the list. Also, it's fine to discuss a book before the scheduled date, just remember to include spoilers in your early postings. If you want to initiate discussion about a book the group has already discussed that's OK as well, but it's polite to look through the archives first. Book group discussion messages should include the string "BDG" (for Book Discussion Group) in the subject. It would also be helpful to include the title or initials of the title in the subject, so that particularly enthusiastic discussions can spill over into the next month. Spoiler disclaimers are not necessary once discussion has begun. Members are encouraged to follow the general list rules such as quoting only the necessary parts of original messages in responses to reduce excess bandwidth. Discussion can be literary and theoretical or more concrete discussions about plot or character development. There's enough of a mix of people on the list that we can each participate in the aspects that interest us and ignore those aspects that don't. Remember, the group's purpose is to encourage rather than discourage discussion. Members (that's you!) are encouraged to suggest a bibliography of essays or other works pertaining to the book currently under discussion or the following month's book. Upcoming discussions: June 7 Nicola Griffith: Slow River July 5 Connie Willis: To Say Nothing of the Dog Aug 2 Octavia Butler: Wild Seed Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 11:38:38 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Time to start talking about Grass. Seems the list was very quiet over the weekend, but I heard that internet access from the east coast US was sporadic on Friday and perhaps that was the problem. So let's start in on Grass. What did you think? This book stands on its own, although there are two related stories that follow it. I suppose we should take care to not spoil anything revealed in later books (Raising the Stones, and Sideshow). I've meant to re-read this book since it's been years since I read it originally, but haven't managed to open it yet. So my initial comments are from memory. I vividly remember being scared by the malevolence of the beings used as "mounts" in the "hunt". And I remember skipping over much of the religious stuff. I'm really looking foward to some analysis of this book! Might be interesting to compare this to the Sparrow - any comments? How do you think this compares to other Tepper works? Stronger, weaker, typical? Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 23:06:59 -0800 From: Sharon Anderson Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Okay, I just finished re-reading it tonight. I liked it just as much as I did the first time, years ago. I, too, was spellbound by the malevolence of the mounts. And I think comparing it to "The Sparrow" as in: compare/contrast is appropriate. In both books, the main character's actions are motivated by the character's faith in of the Catholic religion, as they understand it. However, I think Marjorie grows, while what's-his-face doesn't. (I also think Grass has a feminist pov, while The Sparrow doesn't.) Marjorie becomes a recovering Catholic, while the other guy tries stubbornly to cling to and give lip service to a faith that has deserted him. He doesn't go on and gain any higher understandings. Marjorie is able to let go, release, and start a new, positive life. Although, personally, it wouldn't have taken me nearly as long as it did take her to say, "Frankly, my dear........" , I wouldn't have done it with near the amount of grace she displayed. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 02:27:49 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This was the best Tepper book I've read so far. It's like a fine painting, so full of detail that one could look at it for hours a day and find something new continually. The mind control of the hippae forcing the aristocracy to hunt the foxen and the sexual satisfaction at the kill was such a powerful aspect of the book. I kept hoping the foxen weren't sentient since the killing was so perfectly described. The casual assumption the commoners had that the aristocracy were inept at real life seemed to mirror those same feelings of the worker class vs. the owner class. I'm usually not drawn to descriptions of locality, but how could you resist the picture of multi-hued, multi level grass gardens? Tepper expertly wound the story lines round and round and tied everything together like a good cup of coffee after a perfect meal. In fact, I'm surprised she had the courage to write anything after this book it is so completely complete. If this had been a romance novel, Rigo would have been quite the catch: brooding, dark and powerful. If his inability to relate personally to women moved him out of the way of king of the prom, then Sylvan would have been the obvious replacement: also brooding but gentle and romantic. I was thrilled that Marjorie ended up with First, the sex scene was perfect, the idea of sharing telepathically with this strange creature was wonderful, yet the more human testing that they put each other through made an entirely rounded and reciprocal relationship. When Marjorie dismissed a romance with Sylvan by saying that her marriage (to a philanderer who had no respect for her as a person) was her religion I was so angry I had to put the book down for a bit. But that tied in perfectly with the main theme of the book, some people suffer from "terminal conscientiousness...Scrupulousness of the kind that creates conditions making poverty and illness inevitable, then congratulates itself over feeding the poor and caring for the sick." By obeying the tenants of the church as completely as she could she made herself and her family miserable, yet she didn't stop coming back for more until she got a full understanding of the arbai, the hippae and the foxen. Tepper's views of the limits of consensual action contrasted with the endless, yet ultimately beneficial, meetings in Piercy's utopia. The foxen debated and debated and debated but were unable to take the drastic actions necessary to preserve themselves or the humans until prodded by Marjorie and First. The arbai, those beneficent beings, died out because they suffered from being "too good to do good." Tepper's disdain for organized religion is consistent throughout the books of hers I've read. Living in the west, I guess she's had enough interaction with the Mormons that they feature prominently. I wonder if she's suffered for that. After Grass and Gibbon's Decline and Fall I would think she wouldn't be too highly recommended at BYU. There were only two things that I felt a little disappointed in. Since I had read Decline and Fall first, I was surprised that there was only one main female character, yet so many main men. They were well drawn, and Marjorie was perfect in her growth, but how good it would have been for Rowena or the doctor to have had larger roles. Oops, and it's 2 am and I forgot what the second disappointment was. It must not have been too large. I had no idea there were other books in the series. I have Sideshow and plan, somehow, to get a copy of Raising the Stones. I want to stay in this universe a while. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:19:58 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: > I had no idea there were other books in the series. I have Sideshow and > plan, somehow, to get a copy of Raising the Stones. I want to stay in this > universe a while. Both books are great! I think GRass and Raising the Stones are my favorite Teppers. However, I just thought I'd mention that "series" is a pretty strong word where these three books are concerned. While small elements recur, I believe the arbai come up again and Marjorie is referred to fleetingly, the "sequels" stand up just fine on their own and the overlap is quite minor, as I remember. More on Grass later. Still Re-reading! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:20:52 +0100 From: Carol Ann Kerry-Green Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I read this book many years ago, and have reread it since, but not recently, it was the first Tepper I read, and it led me on to many more wonderful novels. I don't have a copy of Grass, so will have to rely on memory. For me, Marjorie is one of Tepper's strongest characters. I loved the descriptions in this book, I loved the atmosphere. I can't really remember much more about it, in any detail, but I'm off to the library on Saturday, and hopefully they'll still have a copy! Carol Ann Hull, E Yorks UK ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 01:41:57 +0000 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG - GRASS To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU This was my first "real" Tepper if you will. I'd read the Marianne and True Game books before this, but they didn't properly prepare me for the complexity and depth of GRASS.Who knew the kind of devoted Tepper reader I'd become? I really need to win the lottery so I can do nothing but read books, listserves and my email. Maryelizabeth -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 619.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 619.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:02:19 +1000 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass Comments: To: shander@CDSNET.NET To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU OK. I recently finished Grass. Along with several other Teppers in a row. Unfortunately I think I may have *overdosed* on Tepper! Unfortunately, I'm left with a feeling of repetition of themes and characters. Emphasis on eco-feminism, religion, and women characters who seem to always be turning into martyrs, or trying to escape a lifetime of having been martyrs. Grass was one of Teppers best though:) Even though I liked the first half much more than the second half. The mystery surrounding the mounts was so skilfully done, I had no idea until we, the readers, are shown through Marjorie's eyes what they really were. I loved the mystery feeling concerning the dead bats, the disappearances of the young girls and how the foxen and other life-forms all fitted together. I particularly loved the message shown by the foxen, and the extinct Arbai, that "all debate-no action" or racial suicide in the name of non-violence, can sometimes be just as stupid, illogical and terrible as violent war. On the negative side - possibly because it is a recurring theme of Tepper's, or possibly because its just feels "overdone" - I was disappointed by the caricatures of Catholicism - On the other hand, perhaps it is a personal life-issue thing, because I personally have had very little experience of any form of institutionalised religion in my life, and find it difficult to identify with it being a major political force. I was also disappointed by the strained nature of the mother-daughter relationships in Tepper's works, contrasted with the mother-son relationships. Someone else posted about feeling disappointed at the lack of detailed characterisation of secondary women characters in Grass, which I echo - but have to add that the other women characters, particularly those closest to the heroine, like daughters, are often painted as shallow and selfish - or misguided fools. Its unfortunate, because it does detract from what is otherwise a solid feminist novel. Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:18:01 0100 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass - Online References To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I started to read _Grass_ again but am not yet finished. But the atmosphere in the first chapters already captivated me. How could I have forgotten? But for a start I can offer some online references on Sheri Tepper: - Laura Quilter's website on Tepper with bibliography http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/authors/tepper.html Comments on Tepper's book at the FSFFU website at http://www.wenet.net/~lquilter/femsf/authors.html#tepper - A tributsite by Tragamor (?) http://www.tragamor.freeserve.co.uk/sst/sst.html Whoever owned this site gave _Grass_ 4 of 5 stars. - Tepper answers questions at EOSCON II, an Online SF & Fantasy Convention on 30th January, 1999 http://www.e-horizon.com/eoscon2/tepper.html They still offer to forward questions to Tepper who promised to answer them. I already quoted once on the (old) list from this 'interview'. But I think it is appropriate to repeat it now: 'Q: Your most recent books have focused on ecology and feminism. Are there topics and issues you have not written about that you want to, or are there issues in which you are interested but will not write about? A: I feel that ecology is the single most important issue in the world today. We will either preserve or destroy the world within the next century. Feminism is a preoccupation because I am still feeling my own female youth, a far different one from that of today's young women in the west, but one that identifies strongly with the women of certain Islamic and Asian countries. Women are still enslaved in large numbers in the world today; it is still wrong; there is still too little being done about it. I feel that we have taken the wrong philosophical track in our approach to crime and punishment, and that until we get off it, we will be unable to make necessary changes in the way we treat both victims and criminals. I have written some on this, and there is a good bit of it in The Fresco. ' Unfortunately I know only one English review of _Grass_, a short, rather unfavourable review by Danny Yee which I quote fully in the following: http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/book-reviews/h/Grass.html 'Grass is a science fiction novel in what I call the "ecological" sub-genre: there is something unusual about the ecology of an alien planet, and unless Homo sapiens (or the right group of Homo sapiens) finds out what it is quickly... - in this case the human race will be wiped out. This basic idea is implemented reasonably well, though as usual the biology is not terribly well worked out. The novel has another strand, a kind of pseudo-religious working out of ideas about the ultimate purpose of human existence, that doesn't really work at all. Too many of the ideas are presented explicitly (in the narrated thoughts of characters) rather than appearing as an organic part of the story. Ideas aside, Grass is a reasonably well written novel with a decent plot. If you are into light science fiction it should keep you happily entertained for some hours.' Then I know two more German reviews. One by Heike Brand ( http://www.flash-zine.de/flash029/h_5918.htm ) thinks _Grass_ strenous reading especially because of the many 'foreign words' (a specialty of German as far as I can tell) and the many descriptions. In total she called the book inspired but criticizes the German translation. Furthermore Brand points out that 'Sanctity' apparently stands for 'Scientology', something that I had missed. The second German review by Ch. Plötz ( http://www.bubis.com/muaddib/sfrez_t.htm#Tepper1 ) is IMO extremely condescending. Plötz thinks that the books is too much infused by feminism and Marjorie Westriding too ideal to be true. Nonetheless he recommends the book ('no classic, but good entertainment'). Does anybody know other online reviews of _Grass_? Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 19:48:58 +0200 From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: on-line reviews To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm sending as an attachment Amazon's page of customer comments, as usual quite interesting. Giacomo Conserva http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/book-customer-reviews/0553285653/002-6661433-6510862 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 21:43:09 +0200 From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: the pearls and rubies of the soul To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU For almost two months I've been living in Sheri Tepper's universe (of course other things are taking place: a war...)- first 'Sideshow', then 'Grass', and now 'Raising the stones'. It is such a rich universe, so tender and hard, so full of drama and melodrama, of ingenuousness and inventivity. In 'Grass' her gifts are manifest: it is difficult to forget the silent unending chase, the shocking orgasms, the palaces and towers, the gardens, the climbers. The plot vicissitudes and the uncanny background have remineded me of Charles Harness (has anybody read 'The paradox men' or 'The ring of Ritornel'?), just like some movements of her prose mirror Cordwainer Smith (this, I think, is true of 'Sideshow'); but there is no speaking of imitation, and I mention this only to remark how literate, how self-conscious I find her. And it is evident that she is writing in this here world, with the fundamentalisms and the slums and the multiple waves of destruction which circle around us and inside us. I find not the least touching aspect her portrayal of Marjorie's activities on earth- a volunteer social worker of sorts, modest and honest and brave- before her taking off to the stars, to a planet so ominous as Grass and to a fabulous dragon being at the very end (dragons have a genealogy of their own in sf: think of Anne Mc Caffrey and of Neveryon)- of course, Sheri Tepper has spent a large part of her life as a social worker, does one have to mention this, so Marjorie's indignation and hope is in some way really Sheri's own. And everything develops smoothly and unexpectedly like in some late medieval half allegorical tale towards an only barely possible liberation- before the next book, the next turn of the story, the next gift given to us. Giacomo Conserva ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 17:15:13 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG - GRASS To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU A minor detail that struck me on first reading "Grass" was that Marjorie had inherited her title by virtue of being the firstborn. I can't think of any title that currrently descends to a female if there is an available male, and many exclude the female (bad ol' Salic Law). A male friend enjoyed the book enormously, but commented that Rigo was seen almost exclusively in "angry" mode. I thought that he generally was, especially in his interactions with Marjorie, but did this bother anyone else? I wasn't troubled by the portrayal of Stella, but I feel this, and the contrasting sympathy with Tony, may have been a perhaps too deliberate device to "balance" the male-female interactions within the family. I loved the poignant description of Marjorie trying to persuade Rigo to lie still so that she could get to know him as she got to know the colt, instead of always sexually overwhelming her. These are just a few minor thoughts: Grass is such a wonderful book on so many levels. Frances ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 21:52:47 -0700 From: Keith Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 5 May 1999, Julieanne wrote: > snip < > On the negative side - possibly because it is a recurring theme of > Tepper's, or possibly because its just feels "overdone" - I was > disappointed by the caricatures of Catholicism - On the other hand, perhaps > it is a personal life-issue thing, because I personally have had very > little experience of any form of institutionalised religion in my life, and > find it difficult to identify with it being a major political force > snip < Here in the U.S., the Catholic Council of Bishops routinely lobbys Congress, and pressures individual Catholic senators (as lawmakers, not as parishioners or otherwise private individuals) concerning issues that directly affect women's lives - birth control and abortion being the two this exclusively male body is most adamant about. The male-governed religions, such as the Catholic, Mormon and many Protestant churches, *are* a major political force in the U.S. Non-representative government in a country that routinely castigates other countries for same can get real frustrating. > I was also disappointed by the strained nature of the mother-daughter > relationships in Tepper's works, contrasted with the mother-son > relationships. Someone else posted about feeling disappointed at the lack > of detailed characterisation of secondary women characters in Grass, which > I echo - but have to add that the other women characters, particularly > those closest to the heroine, like daughters, are often painted as shallow > and selfish - or misguided fools. Its unfortunate, because it does detract > from what is otherwise a solid feminist novel. I thought this pulled an otherwise well put together novel out of shape, too. Liked especially the full, consistent descriptions of the land and buildings that went with the land and the human adaptations to the land, but thought that M. Tepper was taking unfair advantage of being an excellent writer to work out a private quarrel in her characterization of Stella, (I suppose I *should* feel the same about Majorie's husband, but this is a feminist list, no?) The sexual competition over Sylvan that Majorie easily won even before she knew she was in the game especially bothered me. But the slow working out of her independance from her husband and her priests - that was great! The Majorie/ Stella issue reminded me of another writer whose probable daughter had my sympathy: Marge Piercy. _Gone to Soldiers_'s major female characters are all sympathetic, except for this charactiture of a whining, shallow teenager who just happens to be the daughter of the middle-aged, female author character. H'mmm - a little public payback, maybe? Kathleen (who'se very grateful her own mother, although incredibly articulate, didn't write stories) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:43:05 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass / fiction vs. autobiography To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >The Majorie/ Stella issue reminded me of another writer whose probable >daughter had my sympathy: Marge Piercy. _Gone to Soldiers_'s major >female characters are all sympathetic, except for this charactiture of a >whining, shallow teenager who just happens to be the daughter of the >middle-aged, female author character. H'mmm - a little public payback, >maybe? Once again, we should all remember that this is fiction and not autobiography. I can guarantee that you're off the mark here because Marge Piercy doesn't have a teenage daughter; in fact, she has no children. I don't know whether Sheri Tepper does, but I think we should all be careful not to attribute a character's motivations to the author. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:16:49 -0500 From: N Clowder Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion of Grass. Where is everybody? Does the book not excite/require comment? Is Tepper that good? That boring? I read Grass years ago, so I was already acquainted with the mysteries around which the book is structured. But it worked dramatically just as well as ever. In particular, once Marjorie & Co. went off into the grass to look for Stella, I couldn't put it down. Grass remains infinitely re-readable to me because Tepper is working with such a broad palette. First, there is the world-building. I have a vivid picture of a world of grasses I have never seen. I found particularly interesting the way Tepper opened with a kind of "ode" to Grass (in present tense), a device to which she returns once or twice later in the book. It gives a sense of "someone" watching developments from a distance, a perspective outside of time, which I think contributes to the never-quite-explicit feeling that there is some intelligence on Grass itself that exists above/beyond the specific intelligences of the various species (did anyone else experience that?) I'm a little surprised Tepper didn't return to this device at the end (not that I found the ending lacking for that reason - though I did feel a teeny-weeny sense of anti-climax). Secondly, there are the characters. I was quite satisfied with the characterization, but after reading some posts here, I have to agree that not all are as rounded as they might be. I thought someone's observation that Rigo was always in angry-mode was a good one. Stella, too was perpetually angry. Since our view of those two is essentially focused on their relationship to Marjorie, and since Marjorie never satisfied them (to say the least), it makes a kind of sense. It's interesting how Tepper set up these two character-types - the angry Rigo/Stella, and the (initially) placating-conciliatory Marjorie/Tony - so that each type was represented in both genders. Rigo's aggressiveness can be parlayed into social advantages, but it is difficult to see that Stella's will ever lead to anything but personal frustration. Rigo has a world to work with, Stella has only her family. They both structure their universes with themselves at the center, and Stella's universe simply isn't big enough to give her breathing room. (Would any universe be big enough? Is Rigo's really big enough?) Marjorie's belief that some day Stella will "grow out of it" is not too realistic, given Rigo as Stella's father, and stems from Marjorie's habit of not acknowledging the bad side of those around her. Marjorie and Tony structure their universes in a typically co-dependent fashion (how can I serve? I must do penance for wanting anything for myself.) We do see Marjorie struggle with this, which makes her interesting, but we don't see much struggle in Tony, and I wonder what this says about a male character with a stereo-typically female outlook. I found Tony the least interesting of the major characters. He was an extension of Marjorie, and one of a number of men who were touched by her suffering (martyrdom?) and who became silently devoted to her. When Marjorie charges off to Stella's rescue, it is primal mother-instinct driving her, but comes off as intelligent (rather than womb-driven) because of the carefully built-up picture of Marjorie's outrage with injustices that society just accepts. She has been struggling with this for some time, but it isn't until it hits her in the gut this way that she leaps the fence and says to-hell-with-society. It's an interesting exercise to picture the story with Tony as the kidnapped one instead of Stella. The book abounds with examinations and depictions of denial - a subject dear to my heart. It's not an easy thing to depict, and I think Tepper did it cleverly - especially the way she opened with the bons going to the Hunt. Everyone on Grass, including the commoners, is to some extent mesmerized by the Hippae. It takes an outside agent (Marjorie) to see what has become so axiomatic as to be socially invisible. (Mainoa is an agent working from the inside, but it is doubtful that he would ever have done anything about the situation. Is that because he really cares for no one except his dead Arbai?) I have some strong feelings about axioms in our society. . . having the agency of social blindness personified in the Hippae feels right-on to me. Marjorie, too, is beset by denials, but though she makes many break-throughs, I felt right to the end that she was still susceptible to them, and thus not made unduly heroic. Lastly, the book remains re-readable to me for the way Tepper looks at various ideas, such as one's relationship with god and the purpose of life. I absolutely loved the scene where Marjorie visits with god after knocking herself on the head. The one thing that really troubled me about the book was the Hippae themselves. I'm re-reading (again) to see if I missed something, but I didn't get why they were so malicious. So unrelievedly evil. I think Tepper may have offered some explanation in terms of Hippae evolution, but it's hard for me to buy creatures that are so single-mindedly focused on torturing or killing others. And some of the things in the Hippae-bon relationship, such as the bons caution never to refer to the Hippae even as "mounts" where the Hippae could hear, don't, on retrospect, make a lot of sense, although they worked to dramatic advantage in the story. And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? "Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't understand. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:21:38 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? >"Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't >understand. My reading of that sentence was "Marjorie, who (by the grace of god) is grass." Little, single, part of a whole...this would tie into the "virus" concept. I haven't been able to find my copy of Grass this month (I think my mom loaned it to one of her friends) but that's what I remember. I don't know whether this "explains" the whole thing. :) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:30:17 -0700 From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU N Clowder wrote: > There hasn't been a whole lot of discussion of Grass. Where is everybody? > Does the book not excite/require comment? Is Tepper that good? That boring? Grass deserves comment, but I haven't yet gotten a copy to re-read it. SOMEONE in my county has chosen NOT to return _Grass_ to the library. . . perhaps he or she simply cannot bear to part with it. >:) > I read Grass years ago, so I was already acquainted with the mysteries > around which the book is structured. But it worked dramatically just as > well as ever. In particular, once Marjorie & Co. went off into the grass to > look for Stella, I couldn't put it down. You've reminded me that I had the same reaction at that particular point. Too often, I get annoyed with mystery in a novel, feeling manipulated as I was strung along. When this happens, I finally jump forward to satisfy my curiosity. I didn't feel like doing this with _Grass._ > I have a vivid picture of a world of grasses I have never seen. Yes, Tepper did an excellent job with this world. Too good, in fact. I was never completely comfortable "being" in this world as I read because I am exceeding allergic to every kind of grass on planet earth to the point of fatal reaction. She described it all so well that I could almost feel myself getting hives and wheezing! > I found particularly > interesting the way Tepper opened with a kind of "ode" to Grass (in present > tense), a device to which she returns once or twice later in the book. It > gives a sense of "someone" watching developments from a distance, a > perspective outside of time, which I think contributes to the > never-quite-explicit feeling that there is some intelligence on Grass itself > that exists above/beyond the specific intelligences of the various species > (did anyone else experience that?) Yes, but I cannot comment intelligently since I haven't read it for months. I remember it was haunting, and pre-cog? or elseways "out" of time (perhaps an early introduction to the Arbai's travel portals?) > And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? > "Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't > understand. Again my currently somewhat unreliable memory must serve, but I seem to remember wondering if it was a play on her herbal name, or if grass was being hailed along with god as an equal. . . oh, I need to re-read this! Good points made and points to ponder included. Thanks! Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:04:33 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass teenage daughters To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I haven't read Marge Piercy's _Gone to Soldiers_ but find it disappointing that she too has the whiney, ridiculous, boy crazy teenage daughter. Besides Stella in Grass, Tepper has the same character in Gate To Woman's country. She's also was in the TV show Picket Fence, the only really obnoxious character in the series. Why is it so easy for feminists to write such thoroughly loathsome daughters? Strongly opinionated teenage girls can be the heroines of stories, but teenage daughters are a different species. Is it the Daddy's little girl character that author's are writing against? Are they writing about girls they knew and hated when they were teenagers? We've all known this kind of girl, we do know she seems to be the popular token girlfriend of the football squad, but why does she so haunt our adult psyches that feminist authors must turn her into their fictional daughters. What must she be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? I've been a teenaged daughter, I've had a teenaged daughter, neither of us had much in common with Stella. If I were to write about a teenaged daughter, she certainly wouldn't be Stella-like. Why do some of our best feminist authors have to depict the main feminist character's daughter as such an anti-feminist? Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:22:42 -0400 From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU i wonder if in some way it alludes to that medieval Latin saying, 'all flesh is grass.' That is to say, all life, all physical life, is transitory and fleeting. That would seem appropriate to marjorie's moving into another phase of life with her foxen friend, where she may not even retain her own name.. (i'm sorry about the missing capitals--i spilled water on my keyboard this morning and the left shift doesn't work! i'm hoping it will dry out, but i may be heading out to the computer store in the a.m.). Sally kamholtz Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > >And now, a question. Can someone please explain to me the closing lines? > >"Marjorie, by the grace of god, grass. . ." It's the word "grass" I don't > >understand. > > My reading of that sentence was "Marjorie, who (by the grace of god) is > grass." Little, single, part of a whole...this would tie into the "virus" > concept. I haven't been able to find my copy of Grass this month (I think my > mom loaned it to one of her friends) but that's what I remember. I don't know > whether this "explains" the whole thing. :) > > jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:28:47 -0800 From: Sharon Anderson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass teenage daughters To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: > > I haven't read Marge Piercy's _Gone to Soldiers_ but find it disappointing > that she too has the whiney, ridiculous, boy crazy teenage daughter. ....... > Are they writing about girls they knew and hated when they were teenagers? ......... > What must she be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? Now, wait a minute. Suppose Stella had been as nice, sweet, compliant and milquetoast as Tony? Would we have a plot? I don't think so. Remember, Marjorie had resolved to let Rigo go and get himself killed, if he was stupid enough to be so inclined. SOMEone needs to provide the impetus for Marjorie to pull herself out of the co-dependant muck and go on the warpath. Suppose the characters of Tony and Stella had been reversed? If Stella had been sweet and compliant and milquetoast, imagine the criticism THAT might have engendered! "All of the men are self-centered and totally unlikeable!" "What's the matter with Tepper, she thinks women have no backbone, they just let themselves be walked on until extraordinary circumstances propel them to stand up for themselves. Doesn't she know any teenage girls who have a mind and a will of their own?" Secondly, I don't think we are supposed to assume Stella represents Tepper's idea of the typical female daughter. Stella and Marjorie (at the beginning) are two sides of the same person, two faces of the same individual. Marjorie is the "angel with the halo," sitting on your right shoulder, counseling you to be good, to think of others before yourself, to sacrifice and pray and bend the head and bend the knee. Stella is the "devil with the pitchfork," sitting on your left shoulder, who counsels you that the angel is feeding you a line of swill, that nothing positive will ever happen for you unless you reach out gladly and take your fate into your own hands, and the sooner the better. Stella doesn't grow; she remains an incomplete person. Marjorie grows. She incorporates both of the little critters sitting on each shoulder and learns to integrate them. That she can do so is what motivates the foxen to think there might be hope for this species. She can put other species ahead of herself, and even be willing to sacrifice her own life to save another. But she is also capable of great anger and (potentially) great violence. She threatens to destroy the foxen unless she gets the needed help. The foxen, at least, believe her. Sharon L. Anderson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:29:08 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass teenage daughters To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sharon Anderson wrote: "Suppose the characters of Tony and Stella had been reversed? If Stella had been sweet and compliant and milquetoast, imagine the criticism THAT might have engendered! Doesn't she know any teenage girls who have a mind and a will of their own?'" In a way this is the problem I have with the depiction of this type of whiney, self centered, boy-defined daughter. I don't see that Stella had a mind of her own, she and the daughter in Gate To Woman's Country don't think through a situation, don't try to see cause and effect or the ramifications of their own actions. They want what they want and what they want is a man. Also, it seems important to them to cause their mother as much discomfort as they can. I'm trying to think of what positive attributes they might have and all I can think is that they're physically attractive and have enough energy to follow through on their misguided pursuits. Stella was loved by her mother only because she was the daughter. I could find no other loveable traits that might have captured Marjorie's devotion. In her single-minded vindictiveness she was almost like a human hippae. I do like your idea of the early Marjorie and Stella being two sides of the same person -- the little angel and devil sitting on opposite sides of Marjorie's shoulders. I'm just very uncomfortable with the idea of the main female character's daughter portraying the devil. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:42:54 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sally Kamholtz writes: "i wonder if in some way it alludes to that medieval Latin saying, 'all flesh is grass.' That is to say, all life, all physical life, is transitory and fleeting. That would seem appropriate to marjorie's moving into another phase of life with her foxen friend, where she may not even retain her own name.." What a beautiful and apt interpretation. The arbai are gone, humans came very close to being gone, Marjorie's old life is gone, as is First's. In the early part of the book relationships and social constraints were meant to be permanent. The aristocrats were the aristocrats and intended to be so forever. The hunt was the hunt, and no matter who died or what harm it did to humans, it was to continue. A dutiful wife was to be a dutiful wife forever. The poor boys who were shipped to Grass were to live their lives in servitude to the church, regardless of their own desires. Everything seemed hopeless and predetermined. Because of the combined actions of humans, and foxen all life was changed. Transitory and fleeting -- perfect. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:25:30 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > Grass deserves comment, but I haven't yet gotten a copy to re-read it. SOMEONE > in my county has chosen NOT to return _Grass_ to the library. . . perhaps he or > she simply cannot bear to part with it. >:) Very likely! I must have borrowed the library copy of Raising The Stones a dozen times before it was available in paperback: I'd have bought the hardcover if I could have found a copy. I learned my lesson. Now I buy Tepper as soon as published, even if it means going without lunch for a few days! Frances ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:07:10 -0400 From: "Laurel A. Lamme" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in >Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > >Frances What reference in Ecclesiastes do you mean? I had always associated Marjorie's signature with Isaiah 40:6-8: The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. To me, as Marjorie identified herself as part of the grass, she was also bringing a part of her religious conviction to the new tasks that might be set before her. Even as she abandoned the "duty" that she had found so tedious, I saw her accepting a role in the larger picture, the whole garden. The idea that "by the grace of God" she might play a part in the evolution, the "becoming" of her species, made sense to me as a reconciliation between her beliefs and her new sense of self. I found it hard to imagine that any character would be able to simply abandon wholesale a set of convictions, whether religious or otherwise, that she had lived by for so long. Therefore I interpreted Marjorie's reference to grass not only as an acceptance of "the people is grass"but also as a hope that "the word of our God", or some other greater purpose, should "stand for ever." Laurel ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:18:24 GMT From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: GRASS To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Although I was one of the ones most thrilled at the prospect of discussing GRASS, I haven't weighed in yet (too many papers to grade at the end of the term, aieee), but cannot resist. Great comments from all--I'll just respond to some of the general topics that have been raised. I've been 'reading' this book ever since the paperback version came out. At least once a year, sometimes more, and have recently begun to write about it (for academic presentations, possible papers, this novel and other of Tepper's work). I think GRASS is my favorite of hers. (Although a tantalizing hint to those of you who haven't read the associated books--not quite sequels--RAISING THE STONES and SIDESHOW--don't write the Arbai totally off, heh heh heh.) The character of Stella: Interesting comments about Stella. I agree that Tepper made Stella much like Rigo, and Tony much like Marjorie which is an interesting cross-gender choice. I don't see her as all that negative a character still. Stella is adolescent--I do not have children, but I do remember being an adolescent fairly well. I thought I was smarter than the rest of the world, especially my parents, and I was pretty darn arrogant about it. I don't know that she's stupid as much as she's self absorbed. I agree she doesn't look up from her self absorbtion to think analytically about what's going on. Of course, remember neither she nor Tony were given all the information about why the family came to Grass. Tony overhears some information and has to be filled in, but Stella isn't. I like the way Tepper plays with the idea that 'traits' are not inherent 'female" or "male" in the cross family/cross gender construction of characters. For me, that's an important feminist idea. In terms of mothers/daughters: there is some interesting research out there about white middle class daughters/mothers relationships (different in some ways from other ethnic groups or class groups) which tend to show a pattern of hostility and a definite sense of daughters NOT wanting to be like mothers. (I don't know if this is true of more recent generations or not, and of course there are always individuals who are different--no generalization can be true of everyone.) I tend to read the problems between Stella and Marjorie as being partly caused by individual character traits but also being an indictment of the patriarchal family structure in which women are pitted against each other (the mother being the primary caretaking/disciplinary/indoctrinating parent) in various ways. I know that a time or two when I had to move back in with my mother because of economics, both my peers and my mother's peers reacted with horror at the thought. My friends swore they'd die rather than go back into a dependent situation with their mothers. I also know as a teenager I swore I'd never be 'like' my mother, meaning in her situation--after the divorce (my father ran away with a graduate student), my mother and I became much closer. I didn't follow the same life choices, but I distinguish her the person from her choices, many of which were dictated to some extent by the culture she grew up in. She's been cheering me on all my life, by the way (and has never once 'nagged' me to get married or produce grandchildren--making her almost unique among the mothers of my female and some of my male friends.) There are also some interesting points made by Joanna Russ and Rita Mae Brown (in essays and novels particularly) about the extent to which some people interpret feminism as all women having to like each other and to be nice to each other (some would say a fairly middle class feminine code of manners) --they see that attitude as overpowering the political impetus of feminism. I don't see feminism as requiring that all female characters like each other, be equally smart, or nice. Marjorie does at times seem too good to be true--but that's true of many epic heroes. What I most like about Marjorie and see as one of the most important traits is that she loves "animals"--and probably likes them better than she likes most people. (A character trait I share!) The description of her relationship with her horses (and remember she was an Olympic rider/competitor) and how she reacts to the hippae and later to the foxen are all connected--and are all a major part of why she suceeds as she does. Her refusal to be rescued and leave the horses to the hippae are the sole reason why First is able to argue the other foxen into acting rather than observing. Their conversation in the stables while the hippae are rampaging around in Commons make that clear--that the moral issue of one species' interaction and treatment of another is at stake. Marjorie's empathy and communion with the horses (and since some of the sections of the novel are narrated from the horses' point of view, they perceive her communion as well and trust her completely) is important as is the fact that by the end of the novel the horses are become more aware and possibly able to communicate with humans. Is Marjorie's closeness and concern for other species part of eco-feminism, or following the path of St. Francis, or both? Back to Stella: I do think that by the end of the novel, Stella has changed (because of her experiences with the hippae), but even so Marjorie realizes that Stella does not particularly like her (Marjorie) even so though she's much nicer about it than she had been formerly. RELIGION/FEMINISM: I should start by saying I'm not a Catholic, but a close friend is, and our discussions of religion has informed my reading of this novel. The interesting thing is that she was raised a Catholic, had all her education (through a Ph.D.) in the Catholic school system (Jesuit university!), and completely identifies culturally as a Catholic but she is (and has been since a teenager) an atheist. So the issue of people changing in regard to their religion is a complex one--that is there are cultural and ethical beliefs that my housemate would never give up just because she doesn't believe in the "god" of the church. (Now I"m not saying what the Church would say about her status, but how she identifies herself). It's also true that American Catholics are affected by their culture and there are differences and tensions that have occured (both between the nuns and priests and Rome, and the lay people and Rome). I don't know what Tepper's religion is, if any, and I don't particularly care. Her future of a world controlled mostly by a single religion is a dark and dystopian one, and the book shares the ideas of some feminists who see patriarchal religious institutions as oppressive to women particularly. Marjorie and her religion: a lot happens quickly in this novel, but it's interesting how much is going on in terms of religion. Marjorie changes by the end, as people have noted, but even at the start, she's not walking the total Catholic party line. At the start, she is working in a 'camp' for women and their children who broke the planetary population laws (more than two children). I love the ironic note of how since women who became pregnant in camp could name their sexual partner a lot of prominent men ended up dead, and the rules were changed so only women guarded and visited the inmates! Marjorie is doing this work as part of her charity work (the Catholic church has set up this camp as a refuge, but it sounds a lot like a concentration camp to me). (Compare her work on Earth with what happens when she asks one of the people who live in Commons about charity work in their culture, and what they tell her!) Her work in "Breedertown" is an important first scene. The Catholic church does not allow contraception--and she thinks about the women trapped between their religious duties and the planetary laws. She also thinks about class and education issues: MARJORIE has an implant (I think the phrase is "imported from a humanist enclave on the coast" or something like that, sorry don't have the book). So she's a Catholic. She goes to confession regularly. But she not only has an implant, she's been able to get one for one of the children in the camp (and, I might be wrong here, but perhaps an abortion as well????) Her husband is Catholic but obviously has no problem with having a mistress and as Marjorie notes regularly breaking the vows of their marriage. As nobility, their household contains two priests (one related to Rigo). I like the complicated way Tepper portrays individual character's reactions and interactions with their religion. It's not simple. Throughout the novel we see Marjorie struggling with major theological and religious questions--to do with God's purpose, the presence of evil, and the moral response. She changes in the course of the novel, partly through her experiences (including the hallucination/vision she experiences after her fall from the tree-heh heh heh--does anybody but me see a resemblance between Rillibee Chime, child of a Joshua and a Miriam, and the "God" Marjorie sees in her vision/hallucination--that is a resemblance in the physical description). Also the question of the sentience/souls of intelligent life that is not human is made an important part of the plot as well. I see "religion" described in various ways in GRASS (as an institution controlled by fallible humans, as an oppressive power on Earth, as a system of ethical beliefs, as a gateway to spirituality--all things which can be in tension as 'different' things) as an integral part of this novel's morality, and an important part of the theme, characterization, plot, etc. The resistance that Brother Mainoa and Rillibee Chime exemplify show that a dominant religion can also oppress men--neither chose to be Sanctified. They were taken, and then they were exiled in punishment. Someone mentioned they equated "Sanctity" with "Scientology." I see Sanctity as being much more an extrapolated future version of the Church of Latter Day Saints (known to outsiders as "Mormons.") Some of the theological beliefs (the importance of names, genealogy, the belief that marriage lasts past death, which as Marjorie notes with relief Catholocism does not) are very similar to what I know of this church. There is an intersting tension bewteen the real life oppression of women that has come because of religion (not limited to "Christian" ones) and the equally real life access to a sense of individual empowerment and agency that has come because of religion. I think the novel does a great job of exploring that tension. Marjorie's last letter to Rigo shows that she has cast off some of the restraints or beliefs of her church--but not all her spiritual and religious beliefs or her moral acts. Well this has gone on long enough and I need to grade more papers! Robin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:04:16 +0200 From: Giacomo Conserva Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass -all flesh is To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU the Italian edition is preceded by this quotation (I'm translating back into English): Isaias, 40,6 greetings. Giacomo C. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:17:57 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU N Clowder wrote: > I absolutely loved the scene where Marjorie visits with god after knocking > herself on the head. Yes, I loved that too and had completely forgotten about it until rereading. Especially great was God's "I wouldn't bother with guilt" comment that Marjorie later repeats to herself. > The one thing that really troubled me about the book was the Hippae > themselves. I'm re-reading (again) to see if I missed something, but I > didn't get why they were so malicious. So unrelievedly evil. I think > Tepper may have offered some explanation in terms of Hippae evolution, but > it's hard for me to buy creatures that are so single-mindedly focused on > torturing or killing others. The only explanation I found for this was that the Hippae are essentially stuck in adolescence. They are intelligent and powerful, but don't believe that they will become Foxen, that is, that they have the potential to evolve further, so they stubbornly persist in destruction. They don't even realize that in killing the foxen they are killing their own potential selves.Lack of maturity may not be a totally satisfying explanation for their evil, on the other hand, it doesn't always seem to require wholly unusual levels of evil on a group's part to plan and execute the eradication of another group just because they are "foreign". That seems all too common. Did anyone else think that Marjorie's search for Stella might have undertones of the Persephone myth? One thing I really appreciated on the re-read was how Tepper shows how the rift between Marjorie and Rigo developed based on each of their desires for what the other would be to them and how those desires were not fulfilled. It seemed much more delicate and truthful than to just paint Rigo as perpetually angry, although perhaps he was that too. In some ways, it seemed like what each wanted was not so different from the other, but since they never even attempted to tell each other what it was, their relationship inevitably disintegrated. If Tepper had been able to add that depth to more of the relationships the book would've been even better. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:42:24 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass teenage daughters To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: > What must [Stella] be representing? Why is she so easy to hate? > (snip) > Why do some of our best feminist authors have to depict the main feminist > character's daughter as such an anti-feminist? While I agree that Stella was unlikable, I think "easy to hate" and "anti-feminist" are stronger terms than I would use for her. If she *is* easy to hate, perhaps it's because Tepper makes the dissonance between mother and daughter so one dimensional that it just seems like stubborn petulance on Stella's part. I wouldn't argue that Stella is a feminist, but is she an anti-feminist just because she is unlikable or because she disobeys her mother in order to pursue a man? We never learn why Stella dislikes her mother, but I imagine it could be because Marjorie is (at first)a spineless, hopeless do-gooder who lets her husband trample her without even trying to hold him accountable for his shit, who lets him bring his mistress along to Grass! Who never even turns him away from her bed! He's a jerk! And Marjorie's acceptance of that seems to earn her the devotion of many a man. Maybe Stella rejects that? Maybe she thinks that if she takes the initiative in her life, she won't end up like Marjorie? It's all conjecture. Oddly enough, Stella ends up with a pretty devoted partner. (Hmm... could the human Hippae thing be related to immaturity?) Anyway, I also wonder why this bad-daughter thing seems to be a small trend, but perhaps there's more to it than anti-feminism? (As Phoebe always says) Lightly, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:54:01 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Sorry: I think I'd mentally merged the Isaiah verse with the "season and a time passage"; probably my aging mind stirred in a bit of Job and Book of Common Prayer as well to sweeten the pot! > >I'd always assumed "all flesh is grass" and the references to grass in > >Ecclesiastes were the source for the "sign-off". > > > >Frances > > What reference in Ecclesiastes do you mean? I had always associated > Marjorie's signature with Isaiah 40:6-8: > > The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, > and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: > The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord > bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. > The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand > for ever. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:08:34 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU A tiny detail that has haunted me since I first read the book: the description of autumn leaves as "heartbreak gold." Her prose is sheer pleasure. Although there is no verse in Grass, when it does appear in other books it's always right: "Bright the sun burning" in Jinian Footseer and "The Last Winged Thing" in Raising the Stones, for instance. Frances ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:34:40 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In Grass Marjorie states that evil can be made but it cannot be unmade. Do you think either Marjorie or Tepper could believe this? I know it goes along with what Madrone has shown us about infant brains being shaped by stimuli and nutrition or lack thereof; but still it seems too harsh a comment to accept. Whatever caused the hippae to become evil perhaps couldn't be undone, but does this mean that an individual hippae couldn't be rehabilitated? If Stella was supposed to be evil, her terrible ordeal did make her more able to relate in a less self-centered manner, but she certainly didn't seem a complete person by the end of the novel. I don't think one is necessarily an unrealistic Pollyanna to believe that with the right conditioning and support some forms of evil can be reversed. Some studies even find that a percentage of child molesters can be rehabilitated, and I can hardly think of a greater evil than that. If this life is the only one we can be sure of living, it's just too depressing to think that some people are hopelessly evil. Their one life has been for nothing and can never amount to anything. This feeling seems to go against the impetus to write books that try to encourage change. I can see a dictator believing this way. Hitler would certainly be able to hold on to the idea, but not a person who lives to create. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:58:41 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass-Evil To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: > In Grass Marjorie states that evil can be made but it cannot be unmade. Do > you think either Marjorie or Tepper could believe this? What a fascinating question! I think it's very possible that Marjorie or Tepper could believe this because I think I could believe it. The question one has to ask then, of course, is what do you mean by evil? > I know it goes along with what Madrone has shown us about infant > brains being shaped by stimuli and nutrition or lack thereof; but still it > seems too harsh a comment to accept. Whatever caused the hippae to > become evil perhaps couldn't be undone, but does this mean that an > individual hippae couldn't be rehabilitated? As far as the story goes, it seemed like the Arbai failed at rehabilitating a single Hippae, yet part of the fault for this failure seemed to be the Arbai inability to perceive evil. Would it have turned out differently if the Arbai had punished the Hippae when it first killed some of the Arbai? Or retaliated? the Hippae probably would have killed them all either way. It's interesting that at the very end, the Foxen start to lay their own eggs and keep them separate from the Hippae eggs in order to hopefully produce less "evil" Hippae. They don't give in to an inevitable outcome and it was partly due to their interaction with Marjorie (and the ethical questions of the Green Brothers?) that they adopted a more proactive strategy to surviving. > If Stella was supposed to be evil, her terrible ordeal did > make her more able to relate in a less self-centered manner, but she > certainly didn't seem a complete person by the end of the novel. I don't think Tepper proposed Stella was evil or that her violation by the HIppae was an improvement. Though she may have been better behaved afterward (who wouldn't be, given a virtual lobotomy?) she still does not really like her mother. Marjorie seems clear that Stella will be violated or killed by the Hippae and that is unacceptable to her, regardless of her conflicts with her daughter. > I don't think one is necessarily an unrealistic Pollyanna to believe that with > the right conditioning and support some forms of evil can be reversed. Some > studies even find that a percentage of child molesters can be rehabilitated, > and I can hardly think of a greater evil than that. I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that this is what Tepper mean when she says evil can be made but not unmade. Of course only she could tell us what she means, but I understand that idea a little differently that your question of rehabilitation. Sure, people can change-- I hope so! In my view, we are all both violator and violated in some way and we have to take responsibility for both. To take your example of the sexual abuser, I believe that they can be rehabilitated, but can the harm they have done someone else be reversed? No. That's not to say that that person can't recover from the violation, but the fact that they were violated in the first place cannot be reversed. It's an evil that hs been made and can't be unmade. The way I understand it is to, first of all, see that anyone has the ability to "make" evil -- if we do, that evil is irreversible in the sense that it is a permanent loss in both the long run and the short run. In my view, there is no "God's will" that will come along and eclipse all those losses and make something good out of them. They're not good and they never will be -- they subtract from the whole of possibility for life and well-being (regretting the quantitative sense of the word). > If this life is the only one we can be sure of living, it's just too > depressing to think that some people are hopelessly evil. Their one life > has been for nothing and can never amount to anything. This feeling seems > to go against the impetus to write books that try to encourage change. I > can see a dictator believing this way. Hitler would certainly be able to > hold on to the idea, but not a person who lives to create. At the same time as I can agree that evil can be made but not unmade I don't believe that anyone is "hopelessly evil". On the contrary, I think that if we understand that once we've "made evil" it can't be "unmade" that we will take our responibility much more seriously and work toward changes both in ourselves and in our society. A "person who lives to create" IMO is a person who has to have a deep understanding of her ability to destroy, not just a potentially naive desire to "do good". Dictators, including Hitler, usually see themselves as great creators and they persuade others of that too. They dismiss the idea that their high ideas might lead to evil consequences--and so they do. Though I love _GRass_ I don't necessarily see it as a great moral wake-up call. On the other hand, I think Tepper's question about what is means to be "too good to do good" is one worthy of consideration. Bah! enough from me! Thanks Joyce, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:16:52 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass, and Tepper's depiction of evil To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm glad to see some discussion about the evil hippae in Grass. This was the thing I remembered most clearly about the book. I intended to get to re-reading it and still haven't, and I'm really surprised at how many posts discuss elements of the story that I just don't remember at all. And yet I still flinch at what I remember about the hippae. The image of those people inventing machines to practice riding for hours without impaling themselves. Shudder. This leads me to point out other Tepper books depicting what seems to be pure evil. (I'm pretty sure my recollections are too vague to constitute spoilers.) Consider the bad guys in Raising the Stones, for example. Or the heavy in Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Wasn't there a malevolent force in Shadow's End? Though I think that was kept mysterious and inhuman. As I recall, in none of these cases did Tepper succeed (or even try?) at counteracting the evil by showing a bit of humanity. She did show some childhood trauma in the case of the bad guy in Gibbon's, but as I recall there was supernatural evil involved as well. Each of these portrayals of evil seem, as a result, to be flat and unreal. Surely this is intentional, she's far too good a writer to have major characters be so uni-dimensional without realizing it. Why? If it was to make the story scary, well it worked for me. Almost too well, I almost didn't finish Gibbon's. The evil portrayed represents various things, from the anti-woman force in Raising the Stones and Gibbon's to a more ecological menace in Shadow's End. I think in some of her other works she does temper the "bad" characters with some humanity. I'm thinking of Plague of Angels, which includes multifaceted characters with far more complexity than the books I referenced here. That seems ironic since Plague sets out to include stereotypical fairy tale characters. But I digress. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 19:14:20 GMT From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass (the nature of 'evil') To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Interesting comments on the hippae and evil. What strikes me most about GRASS however is not just that the hippae are presented as evil, but how many of the humans are a lot like the hippae. When the bons meet in their first council at the start of the book, they pretty much say that they don't care if all the rest of the human race dies of the plague because, basically, good riddance to "fragras" (their word for foreigner or outsider which is pretty much used as an obscenity). When Roderigo is first told of the plague and the threat to humanity by his uncle, the Hierarch of Sanctity, his reaction is much the same: he thinks it will kill off humans everywhere else, or the Sanctified, perhaps, but it doesn't bother him in the least. It takes him a while to understand that the threat is to all humans, everywhere. I'm not sure most of the bons ever get the idea--and since people on Grass don't get the plague, they can afford not to care. The new Hierarch's plan, revealed by a careless dropping of a letter, is that, sure, find the cure, but don't worry about most people who are alive (especially those outside the control of the Church)--let most of them die off. So the hippae, with their "joy to kill strangers" (I don't have the book with me so am not sure I'm quoting exactly) are not that much worse--the 'others' they enjoy killing off are not their own species, at least, (the foxen are what some hippae change into) while some humans are presented as not caring whether the rest of the human race dies off, or as actively working toward that goal. The Moldies are a terrorist group dedicated to spreading the plague in order to bring about the "Last Days," total destruction of the human race. A common theme through Tepper's work--and very strong in the GRASS/RAISING THE STONES/SIDESHOW group of related novels--is that some humans apparently are hardwired or completely genetically unable to NOT oppress others (one of the characters in STONES advances a theory about that minority), especially women, children, and those having less power. But even other humans are inclined to follow that dominant ideology--the 'solution' advanced in the novels... SPOILER ALERT........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is that something from outside changes humans so that they are more empathic--more aware of what other people feel (and the corollary there is that they are aware that other people do feel). Even when Marjorie spreads the idea of a new philosophy/religion, as the Prophetess of Thyker, given a thousand or so years of men 'interpreting' her words, the new philosophy can become institutionalized as an oppressive religion. On the other side of the 'coin,' so to speak, from the hippae are the Arbai (who are not really extinct as it turns out): they are a race so inherently/genetically/totally good that they have no concept of "evil" done as a conscious choice. They choose to withdraw rather than try to act, but their communications device is the outside factor. Before you can really analyze the concept of evil in GRASS, I think you have to look at the two other novels which are not a traditional trilogy but awfully tightly connected to GRASS. And the construction of the aliens (the hippae, the Arbai, the Celerians, etc.) are interesting to 'compare' to humans in the novels as well. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:35:06 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Susan, Thanks for your long comments on the nature of evil in Grass. I hadn't thought that Tepper might have meant that it was the results of evil that can't be uncreated, but I certainly agree with your views there. I've always had a hard time with the forgive and forget concept. I imagine if my children or I were raped I might in time be able to forgive the rapist (how, I don't know, but it's possible) but to forget would be out of my power. In that sense the evil couldn't be undone. I thought, however, Marjorie, meant that a person (or other sentient being) could be made evil but that being couldn't then become not evil. I think, as Jennifer and others have mentioned, Tepper is saying something about the nature of evil itself. In Gibbon's Decline and Fall she shows a person who has become evil, which is sort of understandable given his background. This is the type of character that's more familiar to my non-Christian outlook on life. But then she also points toward a character who is evil personified. He is essentially Satan and glorifies in the misery of others. This character can't be unmade evil, because evil is his nature. He seems to be the guiding influence behind the organized religions portrayed in Tepper's books. I agree that the Sanctified church presented in Grass is the LDS church, not Scientology. It just fits so perfectly. I don't see how she's managed to avoid the wrath of the fundamentalists, maybe they haven't read her. Is Tepper saying that if a person welcomes that evil spirit into his heart, there's no way to get it out? In Gate To Women's Country she has little hope for the majority of men outside the gates. The women don't waste their time trying to reason with them, in fact educating them is against the law. The women are content to have those men just kill each other off. Again these men seem to be "genetically" evil. Trying to change them into decent human beings who could live within the women's community would be a waste of effort. Maybe Tepper has had her fill of endless debate. At her age she must have confronted mindless patriarchy enough that she's unwilling to waste any more time on it. As realistic an approach as that might be, and I think most of us have had enough confrontation with die-hard male chauvinists to understand the position, it just seems so hopeless to me. I myself am no longer willing to engage in those debates, I'm just surprised that so eloquent a writer shares the same resignation. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 07:05:29 EDT From: "Demetria M. Shew" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 5/24/99 5:35:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: << Tepper >> I always felt that Tepper was writing about colonialism. I didn't feel that the Mounts were evil, so much as responding to invaders to their land. If you just consider, as an example, Cotton Mather in the colonies in early America: he instigated at least one morning massacre of sleeping natives (men, women and children) in the name of god, writing that god glorified in the deed. He certainly didn't consider himself evil, nor did those who accompanied him. He was fully convinced that he was in the right, doing what was normal and destined for Heaven. The native americans certainly must have held a different view. There are countless examples of this: where horrific evil is meted out by people who think they are righteous. So I don't see her works as a study of evil so much as a study of loss of empathy, of a kind of moral failure to thrive. How do you face evil, not when it comes from devils, but when it comes from those who feel their hearts are pure, motives godly, and actions in line with duty (and manliness)? How do you remain staunch when you can see that the people doing evil are innocent in their hearts because of their beliefs? How do you deal with it? I find her worlds complex and challenging. Madrone ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:51:20 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU POSSIBLE SPOILERS for Gate to Women's Country > In Gate To Women's Country she has little > hope for the majority of men outside the gates. The women don't waste their > time trying to reason with them, in fact educating them is against the law. > The women are content to have those men just kill each other off. Well, the whole point was trying to breed out the military mindset: the men have the opportunity to opt out between the ages of 15 to 25, if I recall, and Joshua was a late returner. Killing each other off, let's face it, is what military men do; it's what males have done forever, one way or another, for the right (fancied or actual) to get access to the prime breeding females. The martial skills of the servitors and Councilwomen are strictly for self-defense. Not sure what would happen if the breeding program succeeded and an invasion occurred which needed a military response; or one that needed a high-tech weapons response. > Again these men seem to be "genetically" evil. Trying to change them into decent > human beings who could live within the women's community would be a waste of > effort. Not evil, necessarily: just not the genetic traits being selected for! > Maybe Tepper has had her fill of endless debate. At her age she > must have confronted mindless patriarchy enough that she's unwilling to > waste any more time on it. All those years in Family Planning...! > As realistic an approach as that might be, and I > think most of us have had enough confrontation with die-hard male > chauvinists to understand the position, it just seems so hopeless to me. I > myself am no longer willing to engage in those debates, I'm just surprised > that so eloquent a writer shares the same resignation. And when she does debate, some call her didactic! But I think her "hard-wired" analogy is very valid: "If one rose from the dead, yet they would not believe!" Frances ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:57:43 EDT From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass and Tepper's conception of evil To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm in agreement with the person who said that Tepper is talking about a lack of empathy. If you can get your hands on the Jinian books, part of her True Game series and, alas, very out of print. you see it there very clearly. "Evil" or the ability to do evil is seen as an inborn thing, something which can't be overcome. At one point Jinian punishes a group of horrible people, and is told that this is the wrong thing to do: they can't learn from punishment or reason or compassion: they can't become good. They just don't understand how. This is not to say that good people can't do bad things, or that people who do wrong can't learn; just that some people are so far gone that they can't be good. Perhaps, now that I think about it, she's saying that true evil *is* the lack of empathy, the inability to understand why you can't hurt other people. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:00:12 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG Grass - evil To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Perhaps, now that I think about it, she's saying > that true evil *is* the lack of empathy, the inability to understand why > you can't hurt other people. This reminds me of M. Scott Peck's argument in _People of the lie_ that evil is evil because of the refusal to acknowledge the harm one has done. I spent a short while in social work and can guess why Tepper would conclude that some people are just hard-wired evil, yet I don't believe that myself. I'm going to have to start rereading more Tepper with this idea in mind. BTW, really appreciated the insights about colonialism. Does it make a difference that Cotton Mather was massacring natives while the the Hippae were manipulating and killing colonists? It seems like it might. one might argue self-defense for the Hippae, at least in regard to the Bons. Their malevolence toward the Foxen adds another twist. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:38:21 -0400 From: "Bucci, Elizabeth" Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] [*FSSFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: Huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I have read all of your posts with much interest and now would like to put in my two cents. I'm warning you though...I'm afraid that I cannot share your gushing enthusiasm for this novel. It's good, but...but...but... My first impression of Grass was disappointment...keeping in mind that I am an avowed Tepper fan and joined this list only to discuss her novels, this is saying alot! What disappointed me initially was the similiarity of Grass to Shadow's End (actually the other way around, Grass was written first) : a « plague » that is threatening all other planets in the universe, one planet that is « immune », someone sent there to find out why and a series of taboos and rituals on the immune planet the secret of which Tepper very cleverly keeps the reader guessing until the very end. I guess I was disappointed that Grass resembled so much another one of her novels, especially when you consider that novels such as Beauty and Gateway to Women's Country (my all-time favorite) are so very refreshingly different. Throughout my reading of this novel, I couldn't really shake this feeling of disappointment. While I enjoyed the novel, I found the ending to be a bit of a let-down : too many unanswered questions and not all of the ends tied together. In this respect, I found Shadow's End to be a much more satisfying novel. Don't get me wrong : I couldn't stop reading Grass. Tepper's style did keep me reading right until the very end : she is a wonderful writer and my disappointment with Grass will not change her stature as one of my favorite writers. Similar to some of your other posts, I too loved how she opens with a description of the Hunt, which the reader doesn't really understand until allowed to watch it through Marjorie's eyes considerably later in the novel. I was really disturbed by the Stella-Marjorie relationship (I am a mother of two young daughters and would hate to have my relationship with any of them end up like Stella and Marjorie's) but this is why I read Tepper! I like to be disturbed as it forces me to rethink assumptions and paradigms, which is what I think literature is all about. Ditto for Rigo/Marjorie and Sylvan/Marjorie : I kept expecting the happy ending, and I didn't get it. That's okay : I don't like clichés and stereotypes and this is not the reason for my disappointment. And, of course, I loved the planet Grass : the opening chapter where she describes the planet, the grass, the bons...that first chapter sucked me right into the story. So, why the disappointment? What bothered me the most was the storyline with the disappearing girls. Again, too many unanswered questions. Why girls? Why young girls and not boys? Why would the Hippae have the concept of gender? They're animals...how can they be attracted to women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their brains? Apparently, they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived sexual pleasure from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure of torturing? What would be in it for the Hippae? I don't get it. Again, referring to Shadow's End, the answers to the mystery of the veiled women were clear, precise and very feminist : women were made to pay a price for a bargain that the songfathers made with a certain entity. (This is deliberately vague for those of you who haven't read it yet.) I don't get this sense of closure in Grass with respect to the disappearance of the women. As I was reading Grass, my guess was that the Hippae « kidnapped » girls whose minds could not be manipulated and therefore posed a threat to the Hippae. But this is not the explanation that Tepper gives us...in fact, there isn't one, which is what I found the most frustrating. For those of you who have read this novel more than once and loved it so much, can you shed any light on this question? It's literally driving me nuts and taking away from my post-novel pleasure! Looking forward to your thoughts, Elisabeth. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:41:45 +0100 From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] [*FSSFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: Huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >So, why the disappointment? What bothered me the most was the storyline >with the disappearing girls. Again, too many unanswered questions. Why >girls? Why young girls and not boys? Why would the Hippae have the >concept of gender? They're animals...how can they be attracted to >women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their brains? Apparently, >they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived sexual pleasure >from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure of >torturing? What would be in it for the Hippae? I don't get it. I wondered about this, but when re-reading _Grass_ just now I wondered if this was another example of the Hippae being aware of other species' feelings/sensitivities and deliberatly trampling on them - i.e. they somehow _knew_ that humans would find what they do to young girls particularly horrible? Also, they are using the girls to transmit plague, but the girls themselves are seen in the Town as harmless, victims, not agents, however unconscious, of harm - this might not apply in the case of men or boys? On another level it fits in with Tepper's themes about male exploitation of women and disregard for their feelings and perceptions - e.g. right at the beginning it is made clear that several of the female members of Sylvan's family hate the Hunt and don't want to go but are forced to. The Hippae's use of the girls matches the patriarch's view of them as disposable. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:34:03 -0400 From: Frances Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] [*FSSFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: Huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU My take on the questions below: I think there was a mention of an occasional young boy (I could be wrong). < Why would the Hippae have the concept of gender? They're animals...how can they be attracted to women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their brains? Apparently, they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived sexual pleasure from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure of torturing? What would be in it for the Hippae?> The erasing of the brains was to render the kidnappee a tool that could be sent on errands in the human settlement: specifically to smuggle the infected bats onto spaceships to spread the plague elsewhere. The hippae weren't interested in the girls sexually, but they were VERY intelligent nonhumans, with strong psychic faculties. Sylvan is hard to manipulate: he has acquired the knack of hiding his thoughts. Those who are unsusceptible suffer the mutilating accidents: they "offend a hound" and have limbs bitten off, or are trampled by the hippae. Frances ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:29:48 -0400 From: Sally Kamholtz Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] [*FSSFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: Huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 19:41 26/05/99 +0100, Lesley Hall wrote: >I wondered about this, but when re-reading _Grass_ just now I wondered if >this was another example of the Hippae being aware of other species' >feelings/sensitivities and deliberatly trampling on them - i.e. they somehow >_knew_ that humans would find what they do to young girls particularly >horrible? I thought it might be the opposite. That since the structure of Bon society is highly patriarchal, the Hippae mimic their use of daughters--a cunning form of parody.. The Bons use them to form alliances between bloodlines; the Hippae use them to break them down. In both, though, the daughter doesn't count as a person. Both engage in a kind of trafficking in women. Perhaps if the Hippae used sons, particularly heirs, the Bons might be more likely to try to break away, to mobilize against the Hippae. Sally Kamholtz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:30:22 +1000 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] [*FSSFU-LIT*] BDG Grass: Huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 19:41 26/05/99 +0100, Lesley Hall wrote: >I wondered about this, but when re-reading _Grass_ just now I wondered if >this was another example of the Hippae being aware of other species' >feelings/sensitivities and deliberatly trampling on them - i.e. they somehow >_knew_ that humans would find what they do to young girls particularly >horrible? I also found this disappointing and not well explained by Tepper. Like the brain filling in the blanks in our visual 'blind spot' - I assumed it was a plot device to illustrate the disposability of girls under patriarchal philosophy, and the Hippae's warped desires to trample over the sensitivities of the human colonists... but still, much of that 'blind spot' of inconsistencies, I couldn't fill in with assumptions. We are told that girls occasionally disappear, (and more rarely a boy). All novice young riders were strongly warned about the necessity of keeping their minds 'blank' during the Hunt, so as not to attract notice of the Hounds. But there is also a hint, that some Bon children had had some contact with Hounds in childhood - the girl who disappears early in the story mentions to her mother that she felt that the Hound which was watching her in her first Hunt, was the same one she had seen earlier in childhood when playing outside the family compound. The Bon daughters who disappear first in the story, are also characterised as 'favourites' of their families - possibly the Hippae knew that the family's grief would be all the more severe? This would be consistent with what we learn of the Hippae's propensity for cruelty - except that the Grassians have no knowledge of what happens to the girls until the first girl returns - so how can the people know how "horrible" it is? Also, it doesn't run parallel with the maiming of the men, as my impression was that it was older, mature men who were maimed, not youths. And the maiming appeared to be more random and ad-hoc than in the selection of the girls. >Also, they are using the girls to transmit plague, but the girls >themselves are seen in the Town as harmless, victims, not agents, however >unconscious, of harm - this might not apply in the case of men or boys? >On another level it fits in with Tepper's themes about male exploitation of >women and disregard for their feelings and perceptions - e.g. right at the >beginning it is made clear that several of the female members of Sylvan's >family hate the Hunt and don't want to go but are forced to. The Hippae's >use of the girls matches the patriarch's view of them as disposable. 'Re-wiring' of the girls brains by hard-wiring sexual response to a command to carry out what was a simple task: - having the girls carry dead bats onto docked ships - seemed a bit of 'overkill' to me. From sheer anatomy their physical response, would be of no interest to the Hippae - so, how come they went to all that effort? Perhaps the Hippae got their kicks out of the girls telepathic 'orgasmic' responses? Which again is consistent with their propensity for evil, except that we are also told that the Hippae didn't need to go to all that effort to elicit control of human responses, sexual or otherwise. One of my biggest questions on this issue was, these girls disappeared without trace to the Grassians, and we are told they were just dead bat couriers - why hadn't any off-planet ship crews ever reported finding dead bats, or mindless girls, showing up in a cargo hold? This had been apparently going on for years, yet nobody ever noticed a dead bat or a corpse (whether breathing, or not) during loading/unloading ? Or did the girls (with or without their bats) at least, return to the Hippae for 'disposal' afterwards? Whatever, we were never told. My reading resulted in assuming that Tepper only used this thread of the story, as a literary device to increase our horror at the evil of the Hippae, and also as a metaphor of patriarchal attitudes concerning violence towards women. Partly by understatement, presenting it almost as a 'minor' side issue - as violence towards women is often presented by patriarchal attitudes. The men were not "erased" or maimed into a state of 'living death', or had their sexuality tampered with. Yet such tampering and erasure is common with acts of violence towards women and is often presented as less violent or traumatic to the victim, than losing a limb. This understatement I saw in the scenes with Sylvan's brother, ( I think), who was in love with the first girl who disappears in the story. When she returns, his initial thoughts and feelings were happiness that she was 'alive and well' and 'no different' - inasmuch she was walking, breathing and physically healthy. She could still have sex, and probably babies, and all her limbs were intact and healthy - what other functionality does a female need in order to be loved? ..... It is some time, before he starts to feel confused and puzzled, and finally acknowledges that the girl he loved has truly 'died' . Even Stella, who isn't completely 'erased' - still finds love afterwards. Paralleled with patriarchy which 'hard-wires' or conditions females into certain 'functions' perhaps? and as long as those functions remain intact - women are considered 'unharmed'? Another aspect of Tepper's understatement of this allegory/metaphor appears later in the book - using the patriarchal stereotypes of the "Hooker with the Heart of Gold" - and the "Good Wife" who both believe it wouldn't be morally right to use the girl as a brothel prostitute. The Wife becomes concerned that the girl is too much temptation for her husband (we all know men cannot control their animal lusts, not their fault, poor things) and trains the girl as a "Ladies Pet" like a trained cocker-spaniel as companionship for the stereotyped "Mistress". And Elisabeth wrote: >Why would the Hippae have the concept of gender? They're animals...how >can they be attracted to women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their >brains? Apparently they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived >sexual pleasure from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure >of torturing? What would be in it for the Hippae? I don't get it. (snip) >But this is not the explanation that Tepper gives us...in fact, there isn't one, >which is what I found the most frustrating. ... It's literally driving me nuts and >taking away from my post-novel pleasure! Perhaps this is another part of the metaphor or allegory Tepper uses, in the apparent lack of any explanation, or consistency, or even 'evil' logic concerning the Hippae's actions. Again, much of the violence towards women under patriarchy, is totally illogical, senseless and without 'rhyme or reason' - there is often no 'method in the madness' at all ..... Possibly the Hippae also act as 'enhancers' or 'amplifiers' of the evil thoughts of other species. The concept of hard-wiring females to be mindless sex machines is reminiscent of the movie _The Stepford Wives_ (which, to me is the most horrific and terrifying film I have ever seen - far surpassing anything Freddy Kruger ever did)....... a patriarchal male fantasy? Civilised men may keep such fantasies under control, but pornography is full of such fantasies. Perhaps the Hippae stumbling over such thoughts, of either desire in the men, or fear in the women, found such thoughts attractive to their 'evil' natures and 'enhanced' the fantasy into reality. Anyway, since Tepper didn't provide any explanations - thats the best I can do with trying to fill in the "blanks":) Julieanne ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:45:25 GMT From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass, huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Elizabeth Bucci wrote: >My first impression of Grass was disappointment...keeping in mind that I >am an avowed Tepper fan and joined this list only to discuss her novels, >this is saying alot! What disappointed me initially was the similiarity >of Grass to Shadow's End (actually the other way around, Grass was >written first) : a « plague » that is threatening all other planets in >the universe, one planet that is « immune », someone sent there to find >out why and a series of taboos and rituals on the immune planet the >secret of which Tepper very cleverly keeps the reader guessing until the >very end. Tepper works with strong similarities across plot/situations/characters -- as she's said in interviews, she has a couple of important messages she wants to get across. I like GRASS more than SHADOW'S END myself. >I guess I was disappointed that Grass resembled so much >another one of her novels, especially when you consider that novels such >as Beauty and Gateway to Women's Country (my all-time favorite) are so >very refreshingly different. My personal response to BEAUTY is that it is one of the weakest of her novels (the two AWAKENER novels, NORTH SHORE and SOUTH SHORE are the weakest I think)--although I like GATEWAY >Throughout my reading of this novel, I couldn't really shake this >feeling of disappointment. While I enjoyed the novel, I found the >ending to be a bit of a let-down : too many unanswered questions and >not all of the ends tied together. In this respect, I found Shadow's >End to be a much more satisfying novel. GRASS is not a stand alone novel. Have you read RAISING THE STONES and SIDESHOW? >So, why the disappointment? What bothered me the most was the storyline >with the disappearing girls. Again, too many unanswered questions. Why >girls? Why young girls and not boys? Why would the Hippae have the >concept of gender? They're animals...how can they be attracted to >women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their brains? Apparently, >they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived sexual pleasure >from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure of >torturing? There is a description or two of the Hunt that make it very clear that at the successful conclusion of a Hunt (the killing of a foxen) all the riders (male and female) are rewarded with intense orgasmic sensations. Apparently this is linked to the Hippae's telepathic communication/manipulation of humans. And in fact, by the end of the novel, it's clear that the Hippae have been controlling/manipulating the bons for generations to help them kill off the foxen. I never have the sense that hippae are sexually attracted to humans in any way. Yes, the girls have some of their neural functions erased and rewired so they follow the commands, but that isn't the only time or the only group the hippae manipulate in this way. Remember too that it becomes clear in the development of Marjorie's and First's relationship that humans and foxen can share a telepathic closeness that is compared very strongly to sexual orgasm -- this is a different sort of relationship than the hippae/human one, but Marjorie is disturbed by it at the first. But the foxen cannot communicate with the hippae telepathically. I agree that this part of the novel is not developed as fully as others, but there's a bit more info than you cover in your original post. And in terms of the girls being chosen--at one point, both one of Sylvan's sisters and his mother (( cannot remember names, sorry )) accuses the men of overlooking the kidnapping of females and being complicit in the whole process. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:23:57 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: Grass, huh? To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Elizabeth Bucci wrote: >So, why the disappointment? What bothered me the most was the storyline >with the disappearing girls. Again, too many unanswered questions. Why >girls? Why young girls and not boys? Why would the Hippae have the >concept of gender? They're animals...how can they be attracted to >women? And why would the Hippae « erase » their brains? Apparently, >they manipulated their minds so that the girls derived sexual pleasure >from following commands : why? Was it just for the pleasure of >torturing? I think I remember that both boys and girls were taken, though we see only girls who wander into town. For some reason the hippae pick out the ones they want and wait for whatever opportunity seems right to take them. Rowena knew this when she asked Dimity after her first ride if she'd recognized her mount. Rowena remembered having been watched by a hippae as a child. In any group of people it's frequently easy to pick the popular or attractive ones, the ones with charisma. Evidently whatever humans find attractive about each other is the same thing the hippae respond to when picking out the ones to capture. Maybe it gives them a greater sense of power to take the attractive humans for themselves. I don't know whether or not the hippae have sexual feelings for the humans, but it's very clear that they can induce sexual feelings in the humans. That's one of the ties that binds the humans: the fact that orgasm can be induced by inhuman creatures. The bons are both embarrassed by and obsessed with these feelings. I thought Tepper brought up a point she made very clear in Gibbons Decline and Fall. The powerful ones (patriarchal religious males in Gibbons, hippae in Grass) are quite obsessed with making weaker beings obedient. In Grass the sexual pleasure come from obedience, in Gibbons it comes from forcing that obedience. It's a malevolent obsession with power that Tepper explores through different perspectives. Joyce