Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:52:55 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU OK, it's time to start discussing Kate Elliot's Jaran. Hopefully after the relative lack of enthusiasm to dig into the Le Guin short stories we can get some juicy dialog going about this month's book. Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? I didn't expect this to be much more than a fun escapist romp, the kind of SF book I love to take on vacations, long plane rides, or to the gym to keep my mind off the exercise. It certainly didn't disappoint me in that! In fact I went on to read the next two books in the series and I have one in my gym bag right now. Do you agree that Jaran is tasty mind-candy? If not, why not -- not your favorite flavor? Or perhaps you are not so quick to dismiss this as fluff? If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? Was anyone else reminded of Kirstein's book Outskirter's Secret? If so how would you compare the two nomadic societies? What other similar worlds or societies in other SF books? How do you feel about this being a series? Did you feel abruptly cut off at the end, or was there enough resolution to be satisfied with this as a standalone book? Are you going to or have you already read the follow-on books? I have more comments and questions to follow but this ought to get things started. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 20:53:46 -0700 From: brahms Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? I'm afraid I can't answer that question, since I kept falling asleep over the book! Elliot's type of fantasy always reminds me of those fat russian novels. Too many complicated names, nicknames, and place names to memorize in order to make any sense of the plot. Sigh ... I guess I'll have to dose myself up with coffee & try again. -Rachel, feeling somewhat embarrassed. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:37:36 -0700 From: Lindy Lovvik Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Let's start off with the basics. Did you like it? Yeah, I liked it. It was somewhat difficult to get into at first, and I cannot figure out exactly why. I kept putting _Jaran_ down in favor of other available fiction, until I finally decided to skim through a few dozen pages. I was drawn in slowly. I don't know if I need a spoiler, but. . . s p o i l e r ! I read _Jaran_ several weeks ago and cannot remember the names of the main characters. Yikes. :( Still, I did not consider it to be mind-candy, although I did feel it was somewhat lengthy and labored in sections. I was not completely convinced regarding the closeness of the relationship between our hero (#@$! what was her name?) and the young Jaran man who becomes her "brother." I found myself becoming annoyed with her because of her protracted grief over his death. This is unusual because I'm kind of a touchy-feely human when it comes to strong emotions. > If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do > you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? I liked the women characters Elliot created, both in the Jaran and in the offworld societies. It wasn't radical, but the strength and social power of the Jaran women was satisfying. I wasn't crazy about the whole "women travel in carts and men ride magnificent steeds," but still, no one gender had all the power. That might be enough to nudge _Jaran_ into a feminist category. I wonder, though, whether our hero would have been as successful in her endeavors had she truly been restricted to women's tasks and means of expression. The fact that she crossed gender lines to achieve her goals, (learning to use a sword, wearing men's clothing, riding horses, discovering what the conquerors were up to) makes it seem that men did have a bit more power than women. > Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? Enough to continue reading the book. I don't remember throwing down the book and shouting "oh, you've got to be kidding! I'm supposed to BELIEVE this stuff?" the way I do when I cannot buy into an idea or fictional culture. It makes it easier to discuss gender issues in fiction if the available sexes have differing, traditional duties. One thing I wondered was if any Jaran men crossed the gender lines to the extent that our hero did (other than her beloved, who accepted the mark of marriage from the hero after he marked her). > How do you feel about this being a series? I didn't know it was a series. I'll have to check out the later books. Maybe then I'll find out about the female members of the "alien" conquerors. I think it stood well enough alone. One thing I found interesting was how the aliens never seemed to learn to notice and interpret human facial gestures. This lack occurs despite the complexity of the alien society. However, (some) humans learn to interpret the conquering aliens' color changes and body language as well as the verbal language. Nice little touch--the dominant culture doesn't learn details about the subcultures, but people in the subculture know much about the dominant one. Overall, the converging story lines were interesting and did not compete for attention. . .I cared about many of the characters and read to discover what happened to them. . .and enfolding description of the conqueror's culture was intriguing. I AM curious to discover what happened with our hero's older brother as he went deeper and deeper into the conqueror's governmental procedures. Lindy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 03:50:55 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I can't believe Rachael was falling asleep over Jaran! I was absolutely possessed with the book for 3-4 days and was even sneaking a few pages at work. However, I too felt a little embarrassed (as Rachael did) but I'm sure for different reasons. I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to read as a teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was disappointed about):) I think the style has clear similarities to the historical romance genre. Perhaps I should clarify I read primarily some relatively hard-core ones by Kathleen Woodiwiss and Rosemary(?) Rogers.I mention the hard-core part because I think it raises one *very important* difference of Jaran and that is that Tess is never in the raped-and-falling-in-love-state that all those "headstrong beauties" are. One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that old trope. And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and believable parts of the culture was the polyamory (sorry, that's the only vocabulary word that popped into my head at 3:31 am. What does that tell you?). The fact that the heroine gets it on with several men and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the tribespeople, seems pretty radical. I was trying to picture that acurately translated into a movie and I just don't think it would happen. That's way too radical for hollywood to do without playing up the jealousy as a means to the climactic "real" love between Tess and Ilya. And that is not what Elliott did. The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). The fact that Tess has sexual relationships with three men, that her closest companion is her "brother" Yuri, and that she is also close to an older man, not to mention that she is unanimously respected as an equal by all the men in her jaran, is pretty cool. And don't forget the women--Sonia is a friend and ally, although Tess's relationships with women don't have much opportunity to mature the same way as those with men. I also liked the way young women started to look to Tess as a model of possibility--that they started considering being riders becasue she succeeded in doing it. If anything, Tess seemed almost too perfect, though I liked that she could be. Everything she did, she did well, from learning languages to dancing. I had not realized there were sequels! I had to strongly curb the impulse to order them from Amazon on the spot. I will definitely read them. But for now, nighty night kids. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:11:08 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 4/6/99 7:51:28 AM, Susan wrote: <> I thought homosexuality was acknowledged, not hinted at, but only among men: the fierce Aranabekh and the beautiful Vasil for instance. I'd have to re-read to be sure, but thought there had been something between Vasil and Ilya at one point. I didn't catch any love relationships among the women. I liked the love parts. In fact, the differing kinds of love Tess felt for the several men in her life was a strength, IMO. I did wish for some more definite and well-drawn relationship with her brother. That was never clear to me beyond her angst about being in his shadow. The beautiful but wicked Vera didn't quite work for me. She was predictable and shallow -- maybe that's what Elliot meant her to be. Not entirely satisfactory for me, though. Some of the time I felt manipulated by the role reversals. Ditto for the "power" of the Chapalii -- I felt as if I were filling in gaps, assuming a story for them that I had not been told by Elliot. Mind-candy it may be, but I read it straight through as far as possible (I seem to do that with Kate Elliot's work), intrigued and pleasured. I thought I had read this book before, but within 10 pages realized I hadn't. (Is there another title close to this?) Besides -- it was fun! best, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:56:19 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU They go: An Earthly Crown | These two are part one and part two of His Conquering Sword | one book, and there's no interval between them The Law of Becoming They also tie into an out-of-print trilogy published by Alis Rasmussen (KE is a pen-name, as I understand it): _A Passage of Stars_, _Revolution's Shore_, and _The Price of Ransom_. These are earlier books, and are shorter and somewhat less complex, but I really liked them. (In fact, I read them first, was outraged that she'd never written anything more, and years later found the Jaran books. I read the back of one at a stop light driving home, and almost forgot to look up when the light changed.) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:02:34 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Would someone please post the titles of the Jaran sequels and their order? Thanks. Susan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:17:27 EDT From: J Brown Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran books To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jaren Sequels An Earthly Crown The Sword of Heaven: Book 1 His Conquering Sword The Sword of Heaven: Book 2 Book 1 and Book 2 are actually one book. An Earthly Crown pretty much stops mid thought and picks directly up with His Conquering Sword. Unlike many sequels there is very little migration from the concepts drawn in the first book. If you are planning on reading the sequels save yourself a trip, both books are needed to come to a stopping point in the story. From the ending of Book 2, there is a great chance that the Jaran tales will continue. JB ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:41:19 -0400 From: Jeri Wright Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I just finished rereading. I'd read JARAN and its sequels when they first came out, enjoyed them a lot, although I seem to recall that, as with many series, the further along you get, the less personal the stories become. Since I prefer the personal stories, I almost always prefer the beginnings of series. Once the stories broadens to a large cast and more interest in "the big picture", I lose interest. Anyway, back to JARAN. First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. Given that, yes, JARAN is good entertainment. I was interested in Tess and her adventures, I was interested in the jaran culture, and I particularly liked the different-but-not-reversed gender roles. (Reminded me in many ways of things I've read about some of the Plains Indians.) Gender roles are played around with a little bit; enough to be interesting, but I wouldn't say that there's anything profound there. Is it feminist? I guess that depends on your definition. I haven't been here (on the list) all that long, but I don't think one definition has been agreed upon. To me, it is by virtue of telling the story from the woman's point of view, having strong women characters, and playing around with gender roles. OTOH, you could argue that much of this book shows Tess more or less becoming "one of the boys" ... Much as I like JARAN, I'm not sure it succeeds that well as a stand-alone. The abrupt ending does leave a certain unfinished feeling. Also, did it seem to anyone else that Tess never really dealt with the issue of "treachery"? Outside events take over, and she just kind of goes along with them. I was glad of it, emotionally I wanted to to stay with Ilya and the jaran, but ... Well, but. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:18:22 +0000 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG -- off shoot question To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Am curious if anyone who read "Kate" has read Alis' works under her own name, and if so, what the reaction to those was. I confess I was never intrigued by any of the earlier works, but am very much a fan of JARAN. 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, 7 Apr 1999 00:30:39 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: JARAN To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I've read JARAN several times, and I always come away with the same sense; not only is this book a lot of fun, it is also one of the most cleverly subtle works of feminism I've read. Elliott is breaking new ground here. She challenges many preconceptions of the male literary canon, but does it subtely and has fun being subversive. JARAN approaches feminism from a different direction than many of the other ground-breakers. I don't think it's an accident that some of the most brilliant ground-breakers in feminist literature have been those that dared to consider nontraditional relationships, including female utopias. Although I've questioned some of the premises of female utopias, that by no means diminishes my admiration for the many great works that have explored its ramifications. Similarly, FSF has been a leader in exploring alternate views of sexuality, either in terms of redefining the sexes altogether, as with Le Guin's LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, or in looking at gay and lesbian relationships. Another one of Le Guin's short works comes to mind, though I can't remember the title. "Mountain Ways"? I believe it won the Tiptree a few years ago. It is set on a world where marriages are among four people, two men and two women. The story concerns one group that wants to break tradition by having three women and one man (Well, okay, it's sort of a guy fantasy. But Le Guin raises provocative questions about human sexuality and marriage). Nor surprisingly, one area has lagged behind the others in feminist science fiction--the feminist portrayal of positive heterosexual relationships. Part of the problem, of course, is that the subject matter edges back into the area of conventional works that have long defined "literary" quality, ie, a canon that concentrates of male works, or works that favor a male world view. When we strip away the symptoms of sexism and get down to causes, it is rooted in sexuality, that is, in portrayals of sex and love, how we feel about them, and how they reflect in our lives. Elliott approaches the subject from many directions, but two major features stand out for me: 1) She challenges the passive/active roles often assigned in human heterosexuality. In JARAN, the men wait while the women make the approach. There are no caricatures here, none of the sexism that showed up in earlier eras, when strong women were portrayed as incompetent until the men finally rose up and took over, "making things right" again. In contrast, Elliott shows a believable culture in which the implicit assumption is, "Yes, it is natural for women to take an active role and for men not to." 2) Her women are strong without adopting male characteristics. What is traditionally considered the male and female spheres of life in our culture are pretty much the same in the JARAN culture. But the emphasis has been switched. The female sphere is valued more. It is the woman's life that defines the identity of the people. In light of number 1 above, number 2 is even more startling. Elliott challenges the fundamental basis of "truisms" about human heterosexuality. Her men may go out riding and waring, but when they come home they are in a position of sexual passivity. They sit around the fire embroidering their clothes while the women decide whether or not they want to make advances and who they will choose. JARAN audaciously thumbs its nose at the idea that male aggression will, by nature, make men the sexual aggressors. I like the fun Elliott has with it, too. It's a hoot the way the male lead goes through so much maneuvering and plotting trying to get the female lead to marry him. After reading so much SF where the woman throws herself at the all-powerful male, who could take or leave her, JARAN is like a great breath of fresh air. Here the Ghenghis Khan character goes through all these traditionally "female" gyrations trying to get his love interest to commit to marriage. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:40:42 +1000 From: Danielle Moulton Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I read Jaran several months ago now and I remember being very disappointed in it. A lot of the ideas and gender roles within the culture where interesting and new but to me the underlying structure was still simply a "mills and boon." (and yes, I did read quite a few of them as a youngster!) To me, Tess WAS basically a different spin on one of the classic romantic "headstrong beauties" Big Yellow Woman mentions. The fact that Ms Elliot has put in a mixed bag of gender roles doesn't change the main facts: The man she falls for- Ilya - was still the strong silent, emotionally scarred, most powerful person in her sphere. Ms Elliot tried to make out that women had plenty of power but as Lindy has pointed out already, the fact was that the only sphere Tess could acheive what she wanted to was with the men. I also thought it was a complete "cop-out" about Tess and Ilya's power relationship, that it's ok that Ilya is the complete leader in this ENTIRE story because we know that away from this setting, Tess is actually a VIP. (It reminded me so much of the the whole secret superhero teenage fantasy- To me it's basically a sop to feminist ideals and lets the whole romance be conducted with Tess on a lower level than Ilya) Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was supposed to be. I don't think i have to mention the treachery at the end where after the usual headstrong -i can do anything i like struggle on her part- she finally acquieses to his demands. I guess i had quite an extreme reaction against this book, because I had expected a lot. When i thought of feminist romance i was thinking equal power relationships, great communication and a story of circumstances which might make things difficult for them. IMO, the basic story of this book was classic romance trash. But having got that off my chest, i did enjoy it for what it was, and look forward to people's comments on some of the interesting twists it did bring up! Normally lurking, Danielle ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:50:58 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It would be too strong to say I hated this book, so I'll just say that I disliked it quite a bit. Susan asks if "feminists have a problem with love stories." I can speak only for myself in saying that Yes, I have quite a problem with the typical romance novel, which this is. This is my synopsis of every romance novel ever written: The man is brooding and powerful. The woman is beautiful and headstrong. They distrust each other, they clash, they show grudging respect for each other's power, they compete, one bests the other then it's the other way around. At last he comes close, closer, his hot breath on her creamy white neck etc, etc. I know there are intelligent people that like this kind of story, I just don't know why. Mind candy? Certainly but, while I have nothing against good candy, to me romance novels are like the old Halloween stuff that's been sitting around for months and you dip into it because your sweet tooth is acting up. Not good, not satisfying, but at least it's sugar. Some of my objections to the book: Tess did inspire some other girls to want to ride with the jaran, but where were the men wanting to live with the women, the real seat of power? Why were men so reluctant to take on the woman's expertise with archery when it was so obviously suited for war, yet practicing with a man's sword was thrilling to women. (Well, that does echo a little of Tepper in Gate To Women's Country. The way to keep men from ruining society is to keep their combat hand to hand.) How is it that even in that society where the women are the ones in charge, still if a youngster wants to make an upward move, she wants to do men things? Elliot gives the women the nominal power but the men the respect. The clincher for me was when Tess was forced to ride in the carts with the women. She found this so upsetting she preferred to walk instead. Not much respect for women's ways going on there. While I did very much like the idea that women had a great deal of sexual freedom and could feel secure from rape and sexual harassment, that was kind of countered by the fact that men made the marriages and the women couldn't refuse except by incurring the scorn of the community. Sure if an unacceptable man marked a woman her brothers could avenge her; but she could do nothing for herself. And it was stated that a man might mark an "uppity" woman just to bring her under his control. No feminism going on there. The villianness of the piece, Vera, was the type of completely one dimensional, beautiful, jealous, vindictive bitch who could have been written easily by the most misogynist male you can imagine. When "they" say hell hath no furry like a woman scorned, this is the women referred to. I did like Elliott's description of the woman's society and would liked to have heard more about it. But since this was not, in my estimation, a feminist book at all, only enough was thrown in to pretend there might be feminism involved. No unmarried woman ever gets pregnant because they take an herb. I guess Elliott considered that bit of information to be an abundant discussion of pregnancy and childbirth because, while Tess rode with the jaran for 6 months, she never once seemed to get her period. Contraception must be easier on that world. Shortly after finishing Jaran, I read this review on H-Net. I excerpt a little here; for the whole review go to http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2118920639535. Theda Perdue. Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700-1835. Indians of the Southeast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Reviewed by Andrew K. Frank, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published by H-SHEAR (February, 1999) As Perdue demonstrates, the world of Cherokee men and the world of Cherokee women, although interconnected in many ways, remained separate entities throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It was primarily through the female domain and gender norms that cultural persistence prevailed. The Cherokees never adopted American "civilization"; they merely adapted it to fit their needs and their preconceived ideas about gender. In traditional Cherokee society, portrayed by Perdue as that which existed around 1700, men and women lived as completely separate people. Women farmed and controlled the domestic space, while men hunted and served as warriors. This squared with the Cherokee cosmology which had men and women balancing each other as complementary entities. Men and women came together to fulfill economic, political, and biological necessities, but their lives remained rather secretive from one another. Rigid prohibitions marked which arenas belonged to men and which ones belonged to women; those who deviated from these gender norms were viewed with hostility and suspicion. Even when in the same room, they tended to maintain social distance. Whether in the household, religion, or work, women and men occupied different spaces. Cherokee women, in this gendered world, wielded most forms of power and authority. This resulted from the fact that Cherokees determined kin bonds through matrilineal clans and resided in households formed by extended matrilineages. Husbands, who needed to be of different clans than their wives, lived as outsiders in their wives' households and among their wives' kin. Because authority within traditional Cherokee society was organized locally, clans, and therefore women, had access to tremendous power. Women owned the farmlands, dictated when clans would retaliate in blood vengeance, participated in local councils, determined the fates of war captives, and enjoyed sexual freedom and autonomy. In this matrilineal and matrifocal society, the power afforded to the harvesters of corn can not be understated. Copyright (c) 1999, H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other permission questions, please contact hbooks@h-net.msu.edu. So there are good books written about this kind of matrilineal society. I just don't consider Jaran to be one of them. Folding my hands in the bored reader who wants now to read a book showing true respect for women gesture, I'll close with apologies to those who found this book worth reading. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:02:37 +1000 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 03:50 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Big Yellow Woman wrote: >While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, >emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was >such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that >old trope. I agree - when I read Jaran the first time, I remember finding myself giggling constantly at the totally unexpected "different spins" Elliott paints over stereotyped scenes. One was the scene of the men returning from war, the great big heros, rippling muscles, swaggers and swords..all sitting down comfortably at the camp-fire to take out their embroidery and discuss the relative merits of each other's needlework! I still find that image hard to reconcile:)) or even earlier, when Tess first arrives at the Jaran tribe and the women take her along on the walk to the river to bathe and do the 'traditional', women's work of washing. Blah, blah, boring I think while reading..until they pass a group of men returning from the river..and these swaggering macho he-men are reduced to blushing, shy smiles, and lowering their eyes downward at the women's cat-calls and flirting! I empathised with Tess, who was also puzzled by the women's behaviour, and finding it difficult to reconcile in her mind, as well as us readers' minds - having made automatic assumptions about what the 'marriage mark' actually meant in Jaran society. >And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and >believable parts of the culture was the polyamory (sorry, that's the >only vocabulary word that popped into my head at 3:31 am. What does >that tell you?). The fact that the heroine gets it on with several men >and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the tribespeople, >seems pretty radical. Yes:) The concept of marriage and sexual fidelity is very ingrained in us - and Jarans *twist* on that issue turned my head around more than once - the idea of "women have no choice in marriage, but men have no choice in sex" was interesting, and my mind certainly boggled over the implications. And that it was expected by all the tribespeople, as well...as part of the soap-opera story of any community, the age-old giggles and gossip of "who is sleeping with who":))....but nonetheless, the Jaran people do have 'rules' of what was socially acceptable - for example, Tess is told off for publicly and ceremoniously giving a gift to the husband of a powerful woman of another tribe - as such public displays in front of the wife or husband were considered "bad manners". >The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by >limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly >Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful >blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). The later books, build the story of Vasil and Illya and how their homosexual relationship affects the tribal culture - in later sequels the Jaran tribes have to confront their feelings about homosexuality, as they adapt to the other cultures around them - But I won't add a spoiler, its really quite complicated anyway:) >The fact that Tess has sexual relationships with three men, that her >closest companion is her "brother" Yuri, and that she is also close to >an older man, not to mention that she is unanimously respected as an >equal by all the men in her jaran, is pretty cool. And don't forget the >women--Sonia is a friend and ally, although Tess's relationships with >women don't have much opportunity to mature the same way as those with >men. I also liked the way young women started to look to Tess as a model >of possibility--that they started considering being riders becasue she >succeeded in doing it. The Jaran women do learn to ride as children along with the boys, but women's hunting with bow-and-arrow was carried out close to home, and the women only needed to ride the smaller cart ponies while hunting. This also becomes an issue for the Jaran tribes in later books, because their enemies in the wars use archers...the Jaran men do not excel in archery, because its a "woman's weapon" and so are at a military disadvantage. Hence the tribes leaders are forced to confront their feelings about women going to war...(sorry, about the spoiler, but its only a little one) Jennifer Krauel wrote: > Do you agree that Jaran is tasty mind-candy? If not, why not -- not your > favorite flavor? Or perhaps you are not so quick to dismiss this as fluff? > If you buy it as mind-candy, did you find it feminist? How successful do > you think Elliot was at portraying female, feminist characters? I enjoyed it as mind-candy but every now and then, there came an unexpected 'fizz' or jolt of having my expectations and assumptions turned upside down. Just when you think you have it all figured out, some Jaran woman or man character made me question my own gender assumptions, sometimes with humour, sometimes with dismay - but thats what feminism is about - questioning assumptions and social 'constructs' of gender roles. > Did you buy into the world and the society of the Jaran? > Was anyone else reminded of Kirstein's book Outskirter's Secret? If so how > would you compare the two nomadic societies? What other similar worlds or > societies in other SF books? I found similarities with Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Mists of Avalon_ in its soap-opera style, ... and also with Shannah Jay's Quest series of books, where a so-thought medieval world is being observed by an orbiting ship of Terran anthropological researchers. As the story progresses the Terran researchers have to constantly rethink and doublethink their assumptions about the gender relationships, as well as the world's level of technology and its religions. > How do you feel about this being a series? Did you feel abruptly cut off > at the end, or was there enough resolution to be satisfied with this as a > standalone book? Are you going to or have you already read the follow-on > books? I certainly wasn't satisfied and had to read the rest. My only grudge is the length of all the books, they are over-wordy perhaps - and there were many times I would think, come on, hurry up and get on with it! By the end of the fourth book, I was feeling satisfied as nearly all the loose plot threads and snarls were coming together and being resolved...only to find, in the last pages, a completely unexpected, but plausible set of *twists* turning upside down all my assumptions and expectations of the "power" relationships with regard to the alien Chappalli yet again! LOL I don't know whether I want to kiss or kick Kate Elliott:)) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:00:03 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: [*FSFFU*] No Subject To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Was thinking about the notion that JARAN is "mind-candy." What do we mean by that? Someone mentioned that such a phrase seems to indicate that the book is of less "value" or is to be taken less seriously than other works. I don't think that applies to JARAN. It takes just as much skill, talent and thought to work out the world of this novel as for any other-world novel. I bought JARAN's world, although I was left with questions about it. (On to the subsequent books looking for answers!) I mentioned in an earlier post that I felt manipulated by some of the role reversals. Someone else said they were amused by the scene where the women are washing clothes, then the men come and the women tease them. That scene, for instance, felt strained and awkward to me, is one where I felt Elliott was manipulating expectations. The more I think about the book the more I like it. And I liked it to begin with. It pleased me that Tess found herself attracted to men other than Ilya. And her choices seemed consistent with her personality. I liked the fact Elliott didn't explain (compare, contrast, discuss) the fact that the women were in charge of important elements of their society. Curious though, about the orphan -- Vladi. Curious about the way the women treated him. Now, he was a screw-up, to be sure, but the onus seemed to be that he had no family. But he did -- he was Ilya's ward. Puzzled by this. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:20:06 GMT From: Robin Reid Subject: [*FSFFU*] "mind candy" vs. "stealth feminism" (was BDG JARAN) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I am cursing at my inability to get and read the current book (mumble mutter too manhy papers too little time), but was struck by the issue that came up of the term 'mind candy,' and the sort of hidden assumptions of that term. (I have been thinking about the term 'mind candy' because I got a message from a former student of mine that a reader at the Big Academic SF journal dismissed her essay because, more or less, said reader hadn't read Nicola Griffith's novel she was discussing but dismissed it as "lesbian mind candy'--for those not into the dreary part of academia, if you submit an essay to an academic journal, reader are those people who read/review/evaluate it for acceptance or not; sometimes one reader is all it takes to wipe out your chances. And since I remember all the wonderful comments about Griffith's work on this list compared to the idiot reader who felt qualified to dismiss a work without even reading it--not unusual in the traditional philosophy of literary studies, the story seemed especially maddening.) A couple of years ago I did a presentation on Lois McMaster Bujold's work--novels not taken seriously by academics, I would argue, because they aren't 'difficult' enough. When I was talking to Bujold after the presentation (she sat in on the panel), I told her I was thinking of coining the term "stealth feminism" for what she was doing--that is, burying what I consider can be classified as amazingly radical feminist ideas in fairly accessible narratives (compared to say, Russ' THE FEMALE MAN which I also adore!), mostly about a male protagonist, that will be bought/read by many more people than OVERT feminist works and might just sneak a few ideas past them while they are being 'entertained' by the other aspects of the stories. (She sort of giggled, and from what she said at the panel, i think that's exactly what she's doing--and may be getting more open about it with her greater success recently....) Sounds from what a few people say that Elliot's JARAN might come under the stealth feminism category.......I'm assuming the analogy 'mind candy' was coined to refer to stories people consider fun (i.e. tasty) but empty of intellect (calories?). As with all literature, one person's mind candy might, of course, be a radical empowering feminist experience for another person....... but I am still intrigued by writers who blend feminist ideas with more mainstream narratives as well as those who challenge readers with the mixture of feminist ideas and experimental narratives. Robin ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:41:08 -0500 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran/mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Anyway, back to JARAN. First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" >offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but >to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is >somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes >good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. Well, here's an alternative way of thinking about "mind candy" then: to me, candy books are the ones that just carry me along via their plot and my interest in the characters. I don't find myself thinking about what deeper symbolism there might be, or what the author might "really mean" by very much, and I don't usually find allusions to past literature or an author's attempt to comment, via the new book, on one or more older ones (as in Angela Carter's _Heroes and Villains_ being an alternate telling of Plato's Republic). Sometimes I don't even think that the author is trying to say anything "deep" about our current world. But: there is not only nothing derisive in my voice when I call a book "mind candy," there is in fact a tone of respect and refreshing relief. I LOVE these books. I would place in this category all of the Honor Harrington books, almost all of Elizabeth Moon, Mercedes Lackey, Anne McCaffrey, and the list could go on and on and on. These writers are expert at telling me a story and making me care about their characters. But usually, there isn't anything beyond or beneath those elements, and to me that makes these books "candy:" fun, filling, satisfying, perhaps a slightly guilty pleasure for a grad student in literature . . . but I couldn't live without them. BTW, I haven't read Jaran and have no opinion on whether or not it fits into this category. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:43:11 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Big Yellow Woman > One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I > had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love > stories? I love 'em. :-) > Now, of course we have a problem with the > victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love > a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not > rewite that genre? I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is rarely if ever found in romances these days. > Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I > happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. It cetainly doesn't embarrass me. I think it's great. After all, many of Ursula Le Guin's works are science fiction romances (eg, "Forgiveness Day"). > The culture admits all kinds of love and doesn't segregate them by > limiting sexuality (though homosexuality is only hinted at-and possibly > Ilya is confirmed totally straight by his rejection of the beautiful > blonde Vasil?That's not so good.). It's a lot more than hinted at in the later books. Read =His Conquering Sword.= (The title has (or could have) more than one meaning!) It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Ilya is pretty thoroughly bisexual. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:29:24 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Several people have commented that Tess could only get the power she wanted by being "one of the boys", but it seemed to me that this was partly because *Tess* bought into the idea that that was the real power. She is not really a part of their culture; she thinks the "male" things are more important. In a later book, there's a big event planned, and at the last minute Bakhtiian has to stay home with a sick child (a twist in and of itself) and Tess says: Won't people be offended that you're not going? and Bakhtiian says: My grandmother [the head of the family] will go. And Tess is jolted by it; she's forgotten that his grandmother *really* has at least as much prestige as he does. This is one of the classic styles of SF: put an outsider into an alien culture, and observe it through their eyes. What Tess thinks and does isn't a reflection of the priorities of the jaran. And I had a great time with this book as a love story. Yes, it partook of many of the typical conventions of the classical romance, but in a way that I thought was very true to the obstinate, frustrated, stubborn, and occasionally stupid ways in which almost everyone I know--gay, straight, monogamous, "open relationship", uncommitted, faithfully married, bitterly celibate--goes about the difficult process of courtship. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:53:44 +0100 From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] "mind candy" vs. "stealth feminism" (was BDG JARAN) To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >but I am still intrigued by writers who blend feminist ideas with more >mainstream narratives as well as those who challenge readers with the >mixture of feminist ideas and experimental narratives. 'An attempt to combine 'normal' and 'abnormal' elements in one life can be as transgressive as a complete dedication to rebellion.' Pat Califia, Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism, 1997 Something which also applies to narratives? Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:12:45 -0400 From: Jeri Wright Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Susan wrote: << I felt a little embarrassed because it was such a love story and it reminded me in many ways of the historical romances I used to read as a teenager (Though Jaran had less sex, which, to be honest, I was disappointed about):) One thought I had, r.e. my own embarrassment over the absolute relish I had for the book is this: Do feminists have a problem with love stories? Now, of course we have a problem with the victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not rewite that genre? Love is a good thing, after all, and in Jaran I happen to think it was a very good thing, despite my embarrassment. While Ilya falls pretty well into the strong, silent, handsome, emotionally scarred mold of the romantic hero, the fact the Tess was such a strong and uncompromised character added a different spin to that old trope. >> The genre has been and is being rewritten already! Romance today is often VERY feminist. Those please-rape-me-again romances are not representative of the genre today. Of course they still pop up, but they are not the norm. You're more likely to find a heroine who easily matches Tess in terms of strength and independence. In fact, JARAN is one of the books on my list when people ask for suggestions for sf/f w/romance. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:36:44 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG -- off shoot question To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Maryelizabeth, Do you mean that Kate Elliot is a pen name? Who is Alis? Tell us more! At 12:18 AM 04/07/99 +0000, Maryelizabeth wrote: >Am curious if anyone who read "Kate" has read Alis' works under her own >name, and if so, what the reaction to those was. I confess I was never >intrigued by any of the earlier works, but am very much a fan of JARAN. > >Maryelizabeth ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 19:52:12 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Danielle wrote > I also thought it was a complete "cop-out" about Tess and Ilya's power > relationship, that it's ok that Ilya is the complete leader in this ENTIRE > story because we know that away from this setting, Tess is actually a VIP. > (It reminded me so much of the the whole secret superhero teenage fantasy- > To me it's basically a sop to feminist ideals and lets the whole romance be > conducted with Tess on a lower level than Ilya) But I think part of the point was that to the Jaran tess was *not* a VIP and for the first time she was able to gain respect for who she was and what she was capable of, not simply because of her relationship to her brother. I didn't see Tess on a lower level at all. The point someone else made about her being an outsider is important because she has to do some learning about what her level of power s a woman really is and she makes mistakes (and the reader makes mistakes) because she expects gender behavior based on earth standards. > Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in > it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop > escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers > while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating > his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was > supposed to be. I said that there was no rape scene, and there wasn't. However, that scene was actually the only one that really didn't work for me on any level. I didn't buy that Ilya would consider that or that it would really be a deterrent to the attackers anyway. It was interesting though, that Ilya feels very guilty about the whole thing, that even the suggestion of a man raping a woman was so unthinkable that it disturbed him that he even considerd it as an act. For someone who obviously equated most everything in life with conquest, the fact that rape is never an option seems pretty unusual. What did others think of that scene? > I don't think i have to mention the treachery at the end where after the > usual headstrong -i can do anything i like struggle on her part- she > finally acquieses to his demands. Was that just "aquiesence"? That's definitely the model. But I think the fact that Ilya realizes he cannot force her to do anything after she rejects him over the coerced marriage is sort of a turning point--though you're right that she never hears him express that maturity. > I guess i had quite an extreme reaction against this book, because I had > expected a lot. When i thought of feminist romance i was thinking equal > power relationships, great communication and a story of circumstances which > might make things difficult for them. IMO, the basic story of this book was > classic romance trash. That's the question about rewriting romance (and definitely about writing erotica, IMO)-- how do you make equality interesting when tension is so much a part of what we find interesting and exciting about falling in love? Thanks for playing, Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:57:05 -0400 From: donna simone Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG 'Elliot'/Rasmussen To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU If I may interrupt.... a web site (her own) on Kate Elliot/Alis Rasmussen. This is the bio page that gives info on both of them ;) The second site/page is a bibliography of all of her books. http://www.sff.net/people/Kate.Elliott/bio.htm http://www.sff.net/people/Kate.Elliott/biblio.htm FYI, both Alis and Kate will be at Wiscon this year. donna donnaneely@earthlink.net Jennifer Krauel wrote: >Maryelizabeth, >Do you mean that Kate Elliot is a pen name? Who is Alis? Tell us more! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:29:01 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: other Elliot/Jaran links To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thanks for the links to the Elliot/Rassmussen web site, Donna. Here are a few more I found: - "An Eye for Detail: An Interview with Kate Elliott". - Miningco.com interview with Elliot by C. Corey Fisk. In another column Fisk recommends Jaran as a SF cross-genre suggestion for those who like fantasy. - "Looking for Science Fiction in All the Wrong Places?" by Emily Alward. Discusses the "Futuristic Romance" sub-genre. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:18:07 -0500 From: Santanico Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 01:43 PM 7/04/99 -0400, Catherine Asaro wrote: >> Now, of course we have a problem with the >> victim-falling-in-love-with-her-rapist stories. The song "you give love >> a bad name" is cycling through my head. Wow! It's late. So why not >> rewite that genre? > >I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is >rarely if ever found in romances these days. Much as I'd like to believe that, only a short while ago I fell victim to Nancy Kilpatrick's absolutely revolting "Child of the Night" (published in early '98, I believe). In which a French vampire named Andre (no seal jokes) kidnaps some woman whose name I don't recall, keeps her locked in a little cell of a room, beats the holy hell out of her if she ever says anything without his permission, tells her frankly that she has no rights and is just a piece of human chattel, and screws her whenever he feels like it. The other vampires, including a friendly one named Gerlinde, just tell the human chick to take it, and maybe he'll fall in love with her! Oh, what a prize, indeed! But it's all right! We find out that Andre once had a wife and child many years ago, whom he lost tragically (probably killed them, I shouldn't doubt), and that's why he's so tormented and tortured and driven to belt the crap out of defenseless women. Well, quite. Then the human chick falls pregnant. She gives birth. He steals the child and boots her out of the house, erasing her memory. Are you feeling warm and fuzzy inside yet? At this stage, would it really surprise you to learn that in the incredibly cliched and stupid ending, all is resolved when Andre realises he loves his little whipping girl - er, I mean, human lover - after all, makes her a vampire, and the two of them live Happily Ever After with the dhampire kid? No, me neither. Let's just hope that the kid never asks "How did you and Daddy meet?" someday. And would it disgust you to learn that this book is only part one of a trilogy? Yes, me too. Good answer. You get a cookie. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:13:54 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] FEMINISTSF Digest - 6 Apr 1999 to 7 Apr 1999 To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I thought folks might be interested in the following aticle, by feminist and doctoral holder Jennifer Crusie. http://www.rwanational.com/crusiearticle.htm Her take on romance closely mirrors my own, except for her take on adultery, which has always bothered me. However, I do agree with her that the Scarlet Letter is hardly a "feminist" work. She hits it right on the head, though, with the following: Excerpted from "Let Us Now Praise Scribbling Women," by Jennifer Crusie. Historically, one of the most devastating moves patriarchal culture has made has been the derision and resulting division of women's communities. That derision is overwhelmingly present in the critical treatment of romance fiction today which almost invariably focuses on the genre as a whole rather than individual works. Imagine an intellectually honest critic saying "All literary fiction is bad" without ever having read widely in literary fiction. Yet people who have never read romance fiction routinely ridicule not only the entire genre but the women who are brave enough to admit to reading it. =That ridicule is a political act, taking our stories from us.= [emphasis mine] We need to embrace our need for stories that privilege love and promise hope for that emotionally just universe, but more than that we need to take back our pride in "women's fiction," women's love stories, women's words, our pride in reading and being "d____d scribbling women." If we can do that, we'll not only be celebrating women's history, we'll be celebrating our future and ourselves, too. ---------- Catherine again: Also, Paradoxa, the academic journal that publishes analyses of various genres, had an entire issue devoted to feminism and the romance genre. Although some of the articles are negative, the majority of them discuss how romance promotes feminism. It's a fascinating study of the genre. The journal is: =Paradoxa, Studies in World Literary Genres,= subtitled, =Where's Love Gone?: Transformations in the Romance Genre,= Vol. 3, No. 1-2, 1997 -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:16:20 -0400 From: Jeri Wright Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran and "romance trash" To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Danielle wrote: << IMO, the basic story of this book was classic romance trash. >> Joyce wrote: << I can speak only for myself in saying that Yes, I have quite a problem with the typical romance novel, which this is. This is my synopsis of every romance novel ever written: The man is brooding and powerful. The woman is beautiful and headstrong. They distrust each other, they clash, they show grudging respect for each other's power, they compete, one bests the other then it's the other way around. At last he comes close, closer, his hot breath on her creamy white neck etc, etc. >> Santanico wrote: << >I would agree. The victim-falling-love with her rapist storyline is >rarely if ever found in romances these days. Much as I'd like to believe that, only a short while ago I fell victim to Nancy Kilpatrick's absolutely revolting "Child of the Night" (published in early '98, I believe). >> I'm amazed, and yes, dismayed, at comments that dismiss a whole genre (a genre that makes up more than 50 percent of mass market sales, BTW) on such little information. There are a wide range of books under the heading of "romance". I read a hundred or more romances a year, and I still only skim the surface, and I'm here to tell you, your old stereotypes don't hold true, at least, not for the good stuff. Yes, going with the theory that 90 percent of everything is crap, there are a lot (a lot!!) of bad ones out there, but don't assume "if you've read one, you've read them all". It doesn't work for anything else, why should it work for this? As for me, I've always preferred novels that concentrate on characters and relationships. The niftiest scientific or cultural speculations will leave me cold if I don't care about the characters. So I guess that explains why I love a -good- romance. If anyone wants some suggestions of some excellent titles/authors let me know. I've even suggested a few to my husband (definitely -not- a romance reader) that he has enjoyed. But then, his theory is that good work is good work, and a good novel is a good novel. Come to think of it, that's pretty much my theory too. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:20:47 +1000 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 07:52 PM 4/7/99 -0500, Big Yellow Woman wrote: >Danielle wrote: >> >> Did someone say the obligatory rape scene of the romance novel wasn't in >> it? I almost threw the book away when it came up. Remember the hilltop >> escape scene when Ilya had to pretend to rape Tess to delay their attackers >> while the band got away. That looked like the classic "man demonstrating >> his physical power over his love interest" to me, or whatever it was >> supposed to be. > >I said that there was no rape scene, and there wasn't. However, that >scene was actually the only one that really didn't work for me on any >level. I didn't buy that Ilya would consider that or that it would >really be a deterrent to the attackers anyway. Yes - that scene didn't work for me, as I couldn't buy it as being a deterrent or delaying tactic for the attackers, they definitely had the military advantage and everybody knew it, but - I assumed it was just a device for Elliott to add some tension/conflict to the characters development. I remember laughing at one point, because Tess almost has to "teach" Illya as a choreographer or stage-director might, how to go about raping a woman - which is also a subtle point, for although Tess's Earth culture background was egalitarian, non-violent and sexually free, Tess still knew more about rape, than the Jaran people did. >It was interesting though, that Ilya feels very guilty about the whole >thing, that even the suggestion of a man raping a woman was so unthinkable >that it disturbed him that he even considerd it as an act. For someone >who obviously equated most everything in life with conquest, the fact that >rape is never an option seems pretty unusual. What did others think of that >scene? Under Jaran law, the penalty for rape was death, pure and simple. No ifs, buts or maybes - similarly the birds being sacred - killing a bird, was death too - (which was never really explained to my satisfaction in any of the books?). One of the things that struck me, was that while the Jaran were quite an aggressive people, - their violence and aggression within their culture was limited to same-gender...women vs women, or men vs men could be as nasty and competitive as anything, but no inter-sexual violence or aggression was ever tolerated even amongst children and siblings. The primacy of the brother-sister bond is unusual too, as it was often seen as being a "higher" love, than that between husband and wife, or even for parents. A girl who had no brother was pitied. A woman who lost her brother in war, was expected to grieve more for a lost brother, than for a lost husband. Discipline of people and children too, was limited to same-gender, if a man misbehaved it was up to men to deal with the offender, and similarly for women..the problem with Vera's behaviour was seen by the men as a "woman's problem" for the women leaders to sort out. >Was that just "aquiesence"? That's definitely the model. But I think the >fact that Ilya realizes he cannot force her to do anything after she >rejects him over the coerced marriage is sort of a turning point--though >you're right that she never hears him express that maturity. I saw that as Tess knowing that she could have walked away and returned to her own world anytime if she really wanted to - and his feelings, and behaviour (or anybody else's for that matter) were not as important as what she felt, and what she wanted to do - weighing up the pros and cons, she decided that in her situation the pros outweighed the cons. In other words, she knew he was behaving like a stupid prat, but accepted that as part of his personal make-up, taking the good along with the bad. I personally wouldn't have made her choice - but I didn't see it as a stereotyped female "acquiescence" to male force. But then also, I didn't really like, or identify with Tess or Illya very much, if I'd been Tess I would have disappeared back to Earth, or at least the city of Jeds with a modern bathroom as soon as possible! LOL...Someone mentioned that in all the months that Tess was travelling with the Jaran riders, she didnt have a period - I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the first book, but I do recall that Earth women used implants which suppressed menstruation and fertility for several years. It becomes an issue in later books. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:46:42 -0500 From: Santanico Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Jaran and "romance trash" To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 05:16 PM 8/04/99 -0400, you wrote: >I'm amazed, and yes, dismayed, at comments that dismiss a whole genre (a >genre that makes up more than 50 percent of mass market sales, BTW) on >such little information. There are a wide range of books under the >heading of "romance". I read a hundred or more romances a year, and I >still only skim the surface, and I'm here to tell you, your old >stereotypes don't hold true, at least, not for the good stuff. Excuse me? When did I "dismiss a whole genre"? I'm assuming you include my comments in the above because you see my comments as doing so; I was criticising a specific subgenre (victim-falls-for-rapist fiction) and a specific novel. I've got nothing against well-handled romance, either as a genre or a part of a non-genre novel. Sant. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:47:19 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] mind candy, romance novels and gossip To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Catherine Asaro quotes an excerpt from Jennifer Crusie, author of Tell Me Lies, so I'll add a little more: "Fairy tales, Luthi says, promise the reader a just universe, and so do the genres. Mystery fiction promises a morally just universe, and speculative fiction promises an intellectually just universe, but romance fiction trumps all of these because it makes the greatest promise of all. It says that if you truly open yourself to other people, if you do the hardest thing of all which is to make yourself vulnerable and reach out for love and connection and everything that makes life as a human being worth living, you will be rewarded; it promises, in short, an emotionally just universe. It told me that what I did made a difference, that the things I understood and had experience with were important, that "women's stuff" mattered. It gave me female protagonists in stories that promised that if a woman fought for what she believed in and searched for the truth, she could strip away the old lies about her life and emerge re-born, transformed with that new sense of self that's the prize at the end of any quest." Crusie, and many of you on the list, make a great case for romance novels, but it's not one that rings true to me. Granted I have not read a hundred or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. Perhaps I haven't read the "great ones", but I don't think I'll go plowing through a bunch of them to find one that resounds in me. If I start reading a book without knowing anything about it and it starts having that "romance" ring to it, I stop. As I've said before, so many books, so little time. I have no plans to waste mine on books that don't teach me anything about myself. Crusie says that romance novels posit an "emotionally just universe" in which, if she fights for what she believes she wins the prize of a new sense of self. I don't see them that way. If Jaran is an example of a romance novel, then I see it showing that if a woman lets herself be conquered, gives her heart to the one who wants her, she can happily live in his world. It's a new sense of self, alright, but one defined by someone else. Where's the accomplishment there? When I define a book as mind candy, I'm talking about one in which plot, or descriptions of things are all important, characterization is secondary to what, where, and why something happens. It's like gossip. We might all be interested in who's doing what to whom at work or in our neighborhood or in Hollywood, but does such trivia have any ability to make our lives more understandable? I think the purpose of reading is to understand life. Someone complained that she got a little tired of Tess's prolonged grieving over the death of Yuri. I think that's because we have no basis for understanding that grief. Yes, in some cultures the sibling bond is very strong, does that mean her grief was just a social response? I think we have a hard time understanding Tess's grieving because grief is such a personal and deep response, and we never relate to Tess personally or deeply. I never get the feeling of her love for either brother. I see obligation, teasing, fun and appreciation, but not love. And I think that's what's wrong with the romance novels I've read or read about. They're not about love, they're not about a deep sense of self and commitment to another being. They're about posturing, and petulance, and competition and acquisition. They might be "about" passion, but they don't help us understand the nature of passion. I know Illya was brooding, and even though I knew some of the facts of his life, I never understood his brooding, it never made a personal connection with me. I don't know the people in this book. I know what they do, but I never understand why they feel or if they feel. The love story in Fisherman, "Another Story" did ring true to me. I learned about Hideo and what he went through before giving himself to Isidri and a life within their family. I believed, even from such a short story, that there was love between those two full characters. In the 494 pages of Jaran the only character described as a believable person was Arina. I could feel her as the dominated little cousin who becomes etsana as I could feel the developing love between Hideo and Isidri. It's a mighty lot of fluff to get through to find one authentic character. I don't see romance novels as showing pieces of real women's lives. I see them as showing undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:18:20 -0400 From: Jeri Wright Subject: [*FSFFU*] mind candy, romance novels and gossip To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce Jones wrote: << When I define a book as mind candy, I'm talking about one in which plot, or descriptions of things are all important, characterization is secondary to what, where, and why something happens. It's like gossip. We might all be interested in who's doing what to whom at work or in our neighborhood or in Hollywood, but does such trivia have any ability to make our lives more understandable? I think the purpose of reading is to understand life. Someone complained that she got a little tired of Tess's prolonged grieving over the death of Yuri. I think that's because we have no basis for understanding that grief. >> Well, by your definition, JARAN is definitely -not- mind candy. For me, the characters were the heart of the story, then the Jaran culture, and the "events" a distant third. I didn't have any problem relating to Tess's grief at Yuri's death; in fact, I felt it myself. Your reaction to the book is not universal. << we never relate to Tess personally or deeply >> Again, don't you mean that YOU didn't relate to Tess personally or deeply. Because I -did- relate to her in a very personal way. I'd say that's one of the reasons why the book worked for me. << Granted I have not read a hundred or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. >> << And I think that's what's wrong with the romance novels I've read or read about. They're not about love, they're not about a deep sense of self and commitment to another being. They're about posturing, and petulance, and competition and acquisition. >> And I still find it amazing that someone who says she hasn't read ten romances in her life is so sure she knows what they are all about. Certainly, comment on the books you've read (though it'd be useful to know which books you're talking about), but assuming you know everything (or indeed, anything) about the genre based on your minuscule sample ...?! At least 100 of the approximately 500 books I read in a year are romances (not counting books in other genres with "romantic" elements such as JARAN), and I'd have a hard time defining the genre so easily. (Though for my money, Crusie does a pretty good job.) I'm not trying to convince anyone to read romance. I would like to point out how ridiculous it is to think you know anything about the subject, however. It's kind of like me saying I "knew", without bothering to read it, that the LeGuin book would be boring because it "looked" boring. True enough, but does that tell you anything whatsoever about the book, or does it just tell you about my own personal quirks? I could also say that I've read ten sf books (even feminist sf books!) that were a total waste of time, populated with cardboard characters, ridiculous plots, and outdated political rants ... Does that tell you anything meaningful about the genre/sub-genre as a whole? -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:41:20 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: [*FSFFU*] Stereotyping genres To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce, that was a good quote you added from the Crusie piece. You also write ... > Crusie, and many of you on the list, make a great case for romance novels, > but it's not one that rings true to me. Granted I have not read a hundred > or probably even 10 romance novels in my life. ... /snip/ I don't see romance > novels as showing pieces of real women's lives. I see them as showing > undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals. If you haven't even read ten books in a genre that produces hundreds per year, you aren't in a position to define that entire genre. I'm afraid that in a case like this I also have to agree with Crusie's statement: "Imagine an intellectually honest critic saying "All literary fiction is bad" without ever having read widely in literary fiction." Imagine if you had read less than ten science fiction or fantasy books in your life, then came on this list and tried to define all science fiction and fantasy with a statement like "I see them as showing undeveloped characters doing "things" to accomplish superficial goals." Who knows what you might have read in SF and F? Gor? Some other sexist business? Some dull, poorly written techno-porn? That said, it's obvious you didn't get out of JARAN what many of us did. That's fine. Not everyone gets the same thing out of a book. What one person sees as great commentary another person may not like. Obviously, not all stories work for all people. But it sounds to me that you are also extrapolating from "I didn't see it/it didn't work for me" to "it's trivia and doesn't make our lives more understandable." I don't see that as a valid extrapolation. Imagine what you would say to all those literary critics who condemn science fiction and fantasy as trash, including feminist SFF, usually with having read only a few examples of the genre. Many of them state that the meaning of reading is to understand life, as you do in your post, then go on to explain at length how SF and/or fantasy fails in this regard, very much the same way you describe what you perceive as the shortcomings of romance. Imagine your reaction to such a commentary. It always disappoints me to see our own genre stereotype other genres in the same way that we so object to having our own genre stereotyped. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:48:43 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: [*FSFFU*] Jaran / romance novels To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It's also worthwhile to note that romance novels, as will every other genre, have conventions and short-hand. I've read a miniscule number of romance novels (all carefully picked out for me as examples of the best of the genre), but at one point I read three of them in one weekend, and the short-hand started to become very clear. Funny thing was, the third was a medieval romance and had a great deal of the short-hand often used in fantasy novels. Because I was grumbling slightly over the romance conventions, I actually noticed that I was skipping over all of the fantasy conventions. Do people know what I mean by "short-hand"? Example: ruler of Domain X is accused of consorting with the devil and destroying all of his/her enemies with magic. Our Hero is sent to his/her castle and eventually finds that s/he is actually a perfectly nice person. This is a standard plot stle that's been done poorly and done well, and which most SF&F readers would recognize and, in many cases, not mind if it was done well. But it's the sort of thing that drives non-SF&F readers up the wall. Every genre has its shortcomings, its weaknesses, its own personal inability to move outside of a fairly small set of constraints. That's what makes it a genre novel. No SF&F reader should judge a genre by those weaknesses. It'll only make us sound dumb when we talk to people who think "literary fiction" is the only thing that won't prove you an idiot. As a last note, I've heard romance readers say that SF is very anti-feminist and in fact anti-woman because it doesn't talk about real people, it's emotionless, it's doesn't have any strong women in it, there's nothing that addresses the existence of family, and where there are women they "show their independence" by acting exactly like men. And *we all make those same complaints*! But that doesn't mean SF isn't worth reading. And it doesn't mean we're all stupid, or non-feminist, or that we want women to act like men if they're visible at all. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:15:08 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran, various comments To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Wow, I got a little behind. Here are some comments that I didn't see already posted: Lindy and others had trouble understanding how Tess and Yuri could be so close and had trouble understanding the depth of her grief at his death. I had the same reaction while reading the story. In retrospect, though, I think that Yuri represented the closeness she could never have with her real brother. She lost that just when she had let down her guard and believed it was possible. This explanation works, but it didn't come through in the story for me, I had to explain it to myself later. Lindy "wondered was if any Jaran men crossed the gender lines to the extent that our hero did" and now that I'm almost through the third book I can't say that I recall any examples of this. All the brave gender-bending was in the same direction. Susan wrote >And speaking of love, I think that one of the most ineresting and believable >parts of the culture was the polyamory... The fact that the heroine gets it on >with several men and that it's completely accepted, even expected, by the >tribespeople, seems pretty radical. Yes, Elliot has fun twisting things around like this and letting us experience it firsthand through Tess. And even though Tess is a bit of a larger-than-life hero, she still makes assumptions and mistakes that I would probably make, enhancing the identification with Tess (and the escapist value of the story). Another angle of the polyamory aspect of the Jaran culture is revealed in a later book. Since sex is not expected to be limited to one's spouse, they don't even try to consider biological paternity. A child's father is his mother's husband, no matter who actually contributed the DNA. Elliot does a good job of exploring some of these ramifications as the Earth & Jaran cultures mix. Catherine sums up the gender whammy of this book best: >JARAN audaciously thumbs its nose at the idea that male aggression will, by >nature, make men the sexual aggressors. Also, Susan points out that Tess didn't have a chance to get close to any of the women, and that it was interesting to see her becoming a role model for other Jaran women -- Elliot begins to explore both these areas nicely in the subsequent books. Speaking of the later books, I thought Elliot tried to introduce too many secondary characters that didn't add enough value, such as Jiroannes the ambassador. I would much rather she spend more time with the Jaran women, fleshing out more what their world is like. Or get on with it and take us to learn about the Chappeli females. Someone else (sorry, I lost track of all the postings) mentioned that the only really interesting character in Jaran was Arina, the new etsana. I agree with this. She returns in the subsequent books but there's not enough of her. Too much time wasted on other characters! Another interesting character, I don't remember if she shows up in the first book, is Nadine, Illya's niece. Nicely complex and again tantalizingly underused. There's material in these books for at least a dozen more. (hint hint.) Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:23:35 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran as mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jeri said: >First of all, I find the term "mind-candy" >offensive in relationship to -any- book. I know it's commonly used, but >to me it seems to indicate an attitude that an entertaining book is >somehow less "important" than a stodgy one. Kind of like, if it tastes >good, it can't be good for you. That doesn't reflect my point of view. I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and read it. I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this guilt out of the way. Interestingly I don't think I had romance in mind when I suggested this was mind candy, although that's clearly how some people took it. At least not explicitly. Then again, a little sexual tension never hurt a page-turner, even when you know who's gonna end up with our hero pretty much as soon as they meet. Thanks to Catherine and Jeri for keeping us honest about throwing genre stones. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:38:56 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran - a collectivist society To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Some time ago I posted a question asking about positive examples in SF of collectivist societies. Several people sent helpful and thoughtful replies and I never got around to responding. Misha and Kathleen mentioned Tiptree/Sheldon's "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" and AJ and a different Kathleen discussed various Cherryh stories in that light. Right after I posted my question, I started reading Jaran and realized here was another example. The Jaran culture strongly emphasizes the good of the tribe over the right of the individual. We see this in a variety of ways, from the forbidden Illya/Vasil relationship to the smaller sacrifices the characters willingly make to maintain the culture's values. Of course none of these are jumping to mind at the moment... In all cases the individuals may struggle with their sacrifice but they go along with them in a way that feels right. Of course they have to, as anyone who breaks those laws is killed. But that's a price they're all quite willing to pay. The most negative reaction to this kind of sacrifice comes in a later book when Ilya pressures Nadine to marry so she can produce heirs for him. Then again we view her struggle through the lens of some of the characters from Earth, so perhaps some of it is projection. This isn't really a spoiler, but sorry if you haven't read that far yet and have no idea what I'm talking about. At any rate, I think Elliot did a good job showing a different set of values from our current individualist culture, and demonstrating these differences in a convincing way. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:28:10 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] mind candy, romance novels and gossip To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU How can I categorize all romance novels after having read 10 or fewer? What I was saying was that from having read those few representatives of the genre, I "personally" find it to be very boring and have no desire to read more looking for the plums. Perhaps I haven't read the good ones. What I'm saying is that I do not plan to plow through completely meaningless (to me) novels in a certain classification in order to find the ones that reflect my life. If Jaran is one of the good ones, and many folk on the list seem to think it is, it reinforces my view that romance novels do not speak to me in a meaningful way. When I say that "we" are annoyed by Tess's prolonged grief because we don't find it believably represented, I'm referring to the person who made the original comment and those like her and myself. Perhaps this person did find Tess a fully developed character and I misunderstood the intent of her comment. Perhaps I am the only person on the list who found the characters in Jaran cardboard and the book to be about 1) action with 2) snippets of ideas that are not fully developed. I would be very surprised if this were true, but discussion can be surprising. As to comparing my exclusion of romance novels from the categories of books that appeal to me with another person's excluding science fiction, I think you have a point. Not all of us can relate to all forms of writing. Some people truly don't "get" science fiction. I suggest they can find a world of books to read that help them understand life without ever touching the stuff. Along with romance novels, I have always dismissed mysteries as a type of fiction that just didn't appeal to me. Then I discovered Prime Suspect, Cracker, Silent Witness and Abigail Padgett. I love them all and now know there are mysteries I can enjoy. What if I hadn't discovered those stories? What if I had lived my entire life not knowing there were good mysteries? I not only think my existence might still have had purpose, I'm almost convinced others could have gone on enjoying mysteries while I didn't. My daughter hates chocolate. She could tell me "We hate the smell, we hate the greasy, bitter taste, we hate the fact that we can't get through a holiday without someone's trying to push it at us" and I would know she was speaking for people like her who hate chocolate. I would also know that her dislike of the confection has no bearing on the ultimate worth of the food. She once laughed as she told me that a friend had said, "I know you don't like chocolate, and I know you don't like coffee, but you should try this mocha java, it's great." No, I don't like romance novels and I don't like novels in which the woman shows she's hot stuff because she can be one of the guys, so not surprisingly, I didn't like Jaran. But I do like chocolate and I do like coffee, and the fact that my daughter doesn't, doesn't make them any less pleasurable to me. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:36:37 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran as mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 4/12/99 3:31:24 AM, Jennifer wrote: <> Oh gee, there ought not to be any guilt. If you have read widely and thought deeply, that is really enough. We must not be stuck in academia, which is most certainly circumscribed. We ought to say what we feel and think as clearly as we can. What else is there? best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie!@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:53:20 -0300 From: Patricia Monk Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran as mind candy Comments: To: Phoebe Wray To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I certainly believe that your thinking and feeling about academia is coming through very clearly. ************************************************************** Dr Patricia Monk patmonk@is.dal.ca Department of English Dalhousie University HALIFAX Nova Scotia B3H 2S3 ignorance is curable * stupidity is forever ************************************************************** On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Phoebe Wray wrote: > In a message dated 4/12/99 3:31:24 AM, Jennifer wrote: > > < guilt out of the way.>> > > Oh gee, there ought not to be any guilt. If you have read widely and thought > deeply, that is really enough. We must not be stuck in academia, which is > most certainly circumscribed. > > We ought to say what we feel and think as clearly as we can. What else is > there? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:18:30 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: [*FSFFU*] BGD: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jennifer Krauel > I used the vague term mind candy deliberately trying to provoke some > reactions. I'm not from the academic world and lack even a liberal arts > education, and I probably speak for many on this list who are a little > intimidated by those of you who actually get references to stuff like > Plato's Republic. For me, a book like Jaran IS primarily a pleasurable > read, since it's got enough interesting gender ideas and characters to keep > me wanting more, but it's not too intellectually challenging. Takes me far > away from the problems of here and now. Gives me characters I can see > myself in, and doesn't do anything too terrible to them. I hope writers > like Elliot keep writing this stuff as long as I'm around to buy it and > read it. > > I'm glad we are discussing this book, if only to let us get some of this > guilt out of the way. Jennifer! You are far more intellectually accomplished than you give yourself credit for. A person doesn't need an academic background or an assortment of degrees. My grandfather didn't receive his highschool diploma until he was in his seventies, when he decided to go back to school. English wasn't even his native language. But he had a wonderfully sharp intellect and valued the development of the mind in all his children and grandchildren, a legacy he bequeathed to my father. Or to put it another way: I =am= from the academic world. I've a PhD from Harvard, from what it's worth, and before I decided to write full time I was a physics professor at a ritzy liberal arts college. And I found JARAN intellectually stimulating. Not only because it gave me a lot to think about, but also because it was fun to read. In fact, I get bored with "easy" books. No matter how much I like a story, I don't usually find it enjoyable unless it either piques my mind or else is so beautifully written that the prose sings to me. There's nothing wrong with also enjoying the fiction that gives us useful insights to ponder. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:13 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran as mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Well, perhaps but more likely not. I figure your response was sarcastic but I will respond seriously. I intended no offense by what I said. In fact I'd say it's more the case that I'm jealous of people who have a liberal arts training and wish I could throw around ideas like that with confidence. The reality is that any time I think I've arrived at some insight or understanding about something I've read, I just assume lots of people have already been there and in fact moved way on ahead. So it's an act of courage each time I post something to this list. I know for sure there are at least a few others who have the same hesitation. When I do post, I try to do it as a regular-gal-on-the-street voice in an attempt to keep some level of visibility for those of us who feel intimidated from many of the conversations or postings. I see that sometimes I go too far in this and imply distaste for a more academic approach. I am sorry I gave that impression, and I do enjoy and try to learn from each person on the list. Please continue! Just know that sometimes when I don't join in, it's not from lack of interest. In fact my whole positioning of Jaran as "mind candy" was defensive as well as deliberately provocative. I felt as if something as accessible as Jaran might be less challenging and thus less interesting to many of you and wanted to offer a way for someone to describe that. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com At 08:53 AM 04/12/99 -0300, Patricia Monk wrote: >I certainly believe that your thinking and feeling about academia is >coming through very clearly. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:58:25 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran as mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I thought Pat Monk's response was a little sarcastic, too... what I was clumsily trying to say Catherine Asaro said eloquently. And now, I hope, this is all cleared up. Spiky list, this. best wishes, phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:24:23 -0400 From: Catherine Asaro Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran/hard SF exposition To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Joyce wrote: > What I'm saying is that I do not plan to plow through completely meaningless > (to me) novels in a certain classification in order to find the ones that reflect my > life. If Jaran is one of the good ones, and many folk on the list seem to > think it is, it reinforces my view that romance novels do not speak to me in > a meaningful way. ... > Along with romance novels, I have always dismissed mysteries as a > type of fiction that just didn't appeal to me. Then I discovered Prime > Suspect, Cracker, Silent Witness and Abigail Padgett. I love them all and > now know there are mysteries I can enjoy. In reading these posts, a thought occurred to me. Although the JARAN series is usually described as softer science fiction, it is actually written in the style of hard SF. In fact, Elliott brings in a great deal of philsophical commentary on human aggression and conquest, particularly in the later books, which she presents much in the style of hard SF exposition. It is subtle because she is writing about different subjects than those usually associated with hard SF. I think she achieves a unique, even brilliant, combination of styles. However, expository writing is a literary device that doesn't appeal to everyone. Nor should it; we all have different tastes, and everyone's taste is valid. I know some of my own fans, after reading my first two books, said, "I really like the characters, but I just skimmed the science." For those first two books, my audience initially split three ways, with about one third wanting more science, one third liking the books the way they were, and one third wanting less. However, as the audience has widened, I've found the "less is better" group increasing the fastest. It doesn't seem to have much connection to the preferred genre, though; I get romance readers saying "I really liked the science" and hard SF readers saying "I really liked the love story." I finally decided to ease up on the SF exposition and perhaps include it in an essay at the end instead, so interested readers could enjoy it without having it slow down the plot, whereas readers who weren't interested could skip it without losing parts of the story. What I'm wondering, after reading your post, is if the expository style of JARAN is what put you off. Although I've often recommended JARAN to friends who are seeking science fiction with a strong romantic component, it isn't actually genre romance; it's thoroughly science fiction. The first romances I tried, many years ago, didn't appeal to me much. I was picking out futuristics, because of their science fiction component. Ironically, futuristics have turned out to be the area of romance I like least, primarily due to sexist or annoying portrayals of the male and female leads, but also because of weak world building. You would think that futuristics, which look to the future, would have the most progressive portrayals of women. Yet when I read them, I sometimes feel I've gone back to how women were portrayed in old SF movies. The most feminst genre romances are actually the historicals and contemporary suspense novels. It wasn't until I got on-line and found on romance listservs, where people discuss the various books and authors, that I developed a feel for which romances would appeal to me. I discovered I thoroughly enjoyed the genre, but =only= certain authors. Others drive me up the wall. It could be that romance isn't your cup of tea, and if so, then you're absolutely right, there is no reason to spend with them. But it might be worth a look at a few more first. Although I'm not familiar with the mysteries you describe above, seeing you post the list made me think you might be open to a few suggestions. Science fiction romance: "Forgiveness Day," by Ursula Le Guin. =Shards of Honor,= by Lois McMaster Bujold =The Moon and the Sun,= by Vonda McIntyre. "Forgiveness day" is a beautifully done novella. I don't know if Le Guin intentionally wrote it as a romance, but it very much follows the conventions of the genre. In fact, it's one flaw (IMO) is a flaw associated with romance rather than science fiction, which is that the story skims over the actual action climax of the plot. Once the love story is resolved, it rushes to the end too fast. However, this is a minor point; overall I enjoyed the story. =Shards of Honor= is another good one. Actually, the full story is SOH and its sequel Barrayar. Although Barrayar isn't technically a romance, it involves many issues treated in romance, with its focus on what the Cordelia, the female lead, values rather than on the war the men are fighting. The scene where Cordelia walks into the battle strategy session conducted by her husband and shows him what she brought in her "shopping bag" has got to be one of the best "ye gods!" scenes in SF. Vonda's book is science fiction rather than romance and the love story isn't as central as in the other two, but it does have aspects of historical romance. This is also a book with exposition, in this case a shimmeringly beautiful depiction of the court of the Sun King, Louis XIV. I loved it, in part because of that, but also because it is a genuine, accurate portrayal of what it was like for female scientists in France during that era. I've always enjoyed (well-written) exposition, though. Badly written expostiion drives me up the wall! I've a review of The Moon and the Sun up at Sf Site, at: http://www.sfsite.com/01b/moon49.htm Fantasy romance: =The Bride Finder,= by Susan Carroll =This is All I Ask,= by Lynn Kurland. (The fantasy aspect is slim, but I very much liked the characters) =Archangel,= by Sharon Shinn Archangel is actually science fiction, but it has an effective fantasy feel to it and won a fantasy award. The other two are genre romance. I've brief reviews of =The Bride Finder= and =This is All I Ask= up at Amazon.com. Kurland's book has a blind male lead, which is done with sensitivity. She also wrote an entertaining role-reversal medieval romance called "The Very Thought of You." Watching the disguised heroine, a strapping female knight, abduct and later rescue a Wall-Street big shot tossed back to medieval times was a hoot. I didn't as much like the ambiguity toward the end, where the knight didn't get her chance to joust with the Wall Street fellow. But overall the book is fun. Kate Elliot's third of the book =The Golden Key= also has a wonderful romance (it's the last third of the novel). This book has a different feel from Jaran. I've a review of it up at: http://www.sfsite.com/10a/gold18.htm Contemporary: =Wildest Dreams,= by Jayne Ann Krentz. This is another I really enjoyed. It also a bit of a mystery. Since I also don't usually like mysteries, I figured if I liked this one, it must work on more than a few levels. Krentz's work is sharp, snappy, feminist, and entertaining. Historical: =One Perfect Rose,= by Mary Jo Putney. =River of Fire,= by Mary Jo Putney. Putney is an outspoken feminist who imbues her work with those ideals, particularly her more recents works. =The Rake= is another good one. She also has a book called =The Wild Child= that will be out soon, which comments effectively on the hypocrisy involved in attempts to control strong/independent women by claiming they are "hysterical" or supposedly have "emotional problems." I posted a shirt review of the Putney novel at Amazon.com Regency (early 1800's in England): =Ravished,= by Amanda Quick. The title is satirical! I almost didn't read this one because of the title. But I had heard a great deal about it, so finally I gave it a try. It's a delightful satire on the "compromised woman" nonsense. Not only is no one "ravished" in this book, but the exasperated male lead has a devil of a time getting the female lead's attention after they spend a pleasant night together. She's quite happy being a spinster and natural scientist. Quick (a pen name for Jayne Ann Krentz) is an outspoken feminist who skewers sexist literary conventions with humor and aclarity. Some of the funniest lines in the book come from the annoyed heroine's comments about her misplaced virginity: ("Well, here it is only a few hours after finding myself ruined, yet I do not feel any of the remorse and despair one would expect after sacrificing one's precious virginity ... it's not like I was planning to do anything all that interesting with it.") I also have a particular fondness for romances about a big, quiet man who is bemused and enamored by a small, independent-minded woman. This may have something to do with my being a small, independent-minded woman married to a large, quiet, enamored, and often bemused male. Many of Amanda Quick's regencies are well done, with engaging characters. They get a bit the same after a while, but recently she's been branching out more. --- Jessie made an excellent comment earlier, which is that some romances have their own conventions, just as SF and fantasy do. Those conventions, unless done well, can irk readers from other genres. The Kurland books probably fall into that category more than the others I've described above (I still enjoyed them, though). The ones that best transcend genre may be the Krentz contemporaries, the McIntyre, and the Putney novels. The Bujold and Le Guin are definitely science fiction, but they do the conventions well. -- Best regards Catherine Asaro http://www.sff.net/people/asaro/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:30:07 +0100 From: Mike Stanton Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jennifer's apology on Jaran as mind candy To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On 12 Apr 99, at 9:30, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I intended no offense by what I said. > In fact I'd say it's more the case that > I'm jealous of people who have a liberal arts > training and wish I could throw around ideas > like that with confidence. Should Jennifer have apologised for thinking that _Jaran_ was "mind candy"? I *personally* think that Jennifer formed a reasonable, perfectly plausible theory based on acute, rational reasoning which she explained clearly. So I don't think she should have apologised. Kate Elliott wrote a highly _enjoyable_ book (I rated it ****-), aimed at the general sf reading public. So it is by that standard that her work should be judged. _Jaran_ and her subsequent book have sold reasonably well - proving that she succeeded. Elliott made no pretensions to intellectualism; she wrote a clear, easily understood work; and (incidently) she wrote the book in what I thought was a stereotypical "romance" theme. I don't mean "stereotypical" pejoratively; like other genres, "romance writing" has its conventions and well-written romance can be just as enjoyable as any other genre. I *personally* couldn't take a full-blown romance novel but I thought that _Jaran_ had much more to recommend it. But in the end, it really was "mind candy". I also don't agree with Jennifer's "... jealous of people who have a liberal arts training and wish I could throw around ideas like that with confidence". Any person with a good knowledge of English is just as "qualified" to read the books discussed on this forum as anyone else. The insights that come from academia are no more valid than Jennifer's (or mine come to that) just because they sound more "intellectual" (whatever that means). I'm afraid that we in the natural, technological and economic sciences seem to give the liberal arts" a sort of automatic, unearned respect. Harold Bloom put it better than I ever could in _The Western Canon_ (especially the Preface and Prelude) when he discusses what he calls the "anxiety of influence" and the "School of Resentment". I always recommend his and Terry [Eagleton's] books to scientists and engineers infected with the "awed by liberal arts" virus; they never fail to cure the patient! Mike Stanton (m_stanton@postmaster.co.uk) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:15:38 -0700 From: Marge Simpson Subject: [*FSFFU*] BGD:JARAN To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I wasn't going to read "Jaran" until I started reading all the comments and strong reactions in the discussion. I'm not very fond of fantasy...uh oh, I'm gonna generalize....it all seems too silly and unbelievable...but I have read Elliott's Prince of Dogs series and have loved it. And I am so glad for the romance and mind candy discussions. I now want to try other fantasies and look for the good stuff I've been missing (suggestions?) As to "Jaran", it is a romance novel (and yes, I read many, many of those as a curious teen). What kept me turning the pages so furiously was the romance element. Tho I have to express my frustration with some elements of that. Forgive me, but I felt the romance got in the way of a fabulous story and interesting ideas. I felt it should have been a part of the story, but not the whole story. And that is just my personal taste. There are many of you who love it for the romance...... And I'm afraid that at times, the characters and story were reduced to 2 dimensionality with romantic cliches that did not ring true with me (the forced "rape" scene, too many wink wink, nudge nudge comments from other Jaran). I felt that what made the book "mind candy" for many was the romance. That ole guilt thing. I can't wait to read the next in the series, because it is an excellent story. As for the academic vs non academic discussion....yes, several of you are intimidating...but who cares, that's what makes this all so interesting. Thanks Ann _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:49:44 0100 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I intended to post this for weeks but I always put it off for later so that as usual I am much behind with my contribution to the discussion. I hope people are still interested. While I was not thrilled I enjoyed the book very much and will probable buy the sequels when I have to fly next time across the Atlantic or so. Like others the book made me giggle many times. Nonetheless, I don't think the book so _very_ feminist for the reasons some others have pointed out already, especially because IMO the world/life-style of the women was not presented as appealing compared to that of the men. It reminded me of something I once read about 'feminist' children books: (in my words) by now there are many books in which a girl is accepted into a boy's group, which is certainly a first step towards equality/equal rights, but so far there is none in which a boy is eager to be accepted into a girl's group. Perhaps I am too entrenched in what is policital correct, but was nobody else bothered by that Ilya is some sort of Attila or Genghis Khan, planning to attack Jaran's neighbours? O.k. it was clarified that the neighbours more and more spread out into the area of the Jaran, but is making war really the only solution? Tess did not seem to be bothered either, that the planet is heading into a major war, although that might be because she keeps to their 'primary directive'. And while I am at it. Was there some motivation given for the rebellion of Tess' brother against the Chappali? I cannot remember any. For me that's one of the gaps in the story somebody else mentioned which have to be filled out by the reader. The Chappali are described as alien, but in fact benevolent rulers, introducing new helpful tools and technologies. They certainly disdain the humans. But if there is encroachment or arbitrariness it is at least not mentioned in the text. So, it appears as if Tess' brother instigates a rebellion for freedom only. Not freedom from slavery but freedom from dominion which IMO is not the same. I don't want to devaluate freedom and self-respect. But do you think a rebellion is justified simply because a group/species is ruled by an alien group whose dominion is in general benevolent and which adheres to a set of rules? The Chappali. Their description reminded me of how Europeans and North Americans perceive Asians, especially Japanese and Chinese. The different set of values and rules, difficult to comprehend and to make out, the different ways to loose face, etc. I am bothered - I wear my policital correctness hat again - that they are presented in such an unsympathetic, despising way, so very much from the outside. I am bothered because - as I see it - in real life we will have to live more and more in a multiethnic world with many groups with different habits, values and rules living in the same area. And I don't think it helps if someone alien is only described as alien and never from his or her point of view. Or if for some reason it is not possible to switch to their point of view to describe the alienness in such a phobic way. I am sorry that I cannot express this better. Any comments? Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:57:48 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Petra commented that Charles Soerenson rebelled for the sake of "freedom alone" -- I guess I just don't see why that doesn't make sense. (Not a rhetorical question!) I don't remember clearly enough to give specific examples, but humans had been restricted, were not respected, could not attain certain positions...and humans have no legal or activist resource; I get the impression that they're ignored. We can make all kinds of analogies to various kinds of oppression in our own history. At the very beginning of _Jaran_ Tess's friend Sojourner says: "No, I don't hate them. They've proven neither cruel nor harsh as our masters." Tess: "Their grip is soft." Sojourner: "But it chafes." To me, that seems like enough. To be owned is abominable, no matter how kind the master. Remember, the Chapalli call humans "barbarians", and I think their word "daiga" has connotations of being an animal. Does the situation seem different to you? I interpreted the one-sided portrayal of the Chapalli as a relic of the same hostility; as we learn more about them in later books the relationship becomes more complex. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that we see very different interactions between humans and Chapalli (well, one Chapalli) which casts a different light on the whole business. They're more than they appear, and we see that. As a last note, to respond to the person who complained that Tess found riding in the wagons with the women "demeaning" (or something like that): she objected to riding with the women whose tribe "her" people had just destroyed. Who among us would want to sit closely together with the losers of a fight that her people had just won? Quoting again: "Ilya, you never asked me how I wanted to return to camp. You simply left." "But of course--" "--I would travel with the women? With Vera? With Karolla Arkhanov, whose father I begged you to kill? With children whose fathers and brothers are dead? Killed by *your* mne? And then all knowing me as your wife." I don't think this had to do with the "low status" of the women's wagons. I would, however, go along with the idea that this book wasn't explicitly feminist, if that is a meaningful term; it's not so much a prescription for a feminist society as an exploration of what gender and gender roles are. I like that just as much; I know some people don't. In Elliott's Crown of Stars series we see this again: men and women are both equally restricted based on arbitrary "biological" and religious characteristics and rules. But with a twist: women tend the homestead, men fight. So men are war leaders--but women are mayors, heirs to large property, church leaders...men don't rise to such high position. In a line that made me laugh for a long time, we're told that men can't have those roles because "they lack the stabilizing influence of a womb." (We may assume that the word for "hysteria" has a different etymology in this world!) jessie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:02:10 -0400 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I too finished *Jaran* recently. Jessie Stickgold-Sarah mentioned that we may be getting a distorted view of male/female roles through the viewpoint character, Tess. Because of her own preconceptions and goals, *she* views the Jaran men as more desireable companions. I agree with this, but only so far. Obviously, Tess' goal from the beginning of the book is to travel to Jeds, and the only way she can do this is to accompany the jahar. On that journey she comes to identify with the men and value what they value, so it might be difficult for her to adjust to the world of women when she returns to it. But... there are other signs that this is not a conscious strategy on the part of the author. Tess never shows any signs of being uncomfortable with the Jaran women and it is never indicated that Tess is an "unreliable narrator". I got the impression that her powers of observation were supposed to be quite good and that she was able to get along with just about anyone. So the fact that the narrative is almost entirely moved along by the actions of men and Tess herself, *even when they are among the women*, says to me that the supposedly central power of women is being paid mere lipservice. In this respect, Eleanor Arnason's *Ring of Swords* provides an interesting contrast to *Jaran*. In *Ring of Swords*, the structure of the Hwarhath society is very similar to the Jaran, the women staying at home for the most part and the men roving around in spaceships making war. As in *Jaran*, the women are considered dominant. But in *Ring of Swords* we actually *see* that they are dominant when, near the end, they decide that they cannot leave the problem of humanity to the men and they step in to decide if humans are "people" and whether or not they should be exterminated like vermin. (!) Nothing like that happens in *Jaran*. It is mentioned several times in the book that warfare is the province of men, but I'm sorry, an all-out jihad against the khaja is too important to leave to them alone, particularly when we know that the khaja will not hesitate to kill women. It can be assumed that the Jaran women will have some impact on the course of the war, but it is very clear at the end, when Ilya makes his speech about how "the Jaran are mine now", that power has been shifted to him. Given the society, I don't find that believable. I get the impression that things are explained a little more in the subsequent books, but this novel alone does not convince me. Or am I missing something? On another subject... I could not make sense of the sexual customs in the book. Why, in a society that seemed not to value monogamy at all (as distinguished from marriage), was sexual jealousy such a constant theme? I was particularly bothered by the subplot of Tess' relationship with Kirill. Sure, she has sex with him and clearly cares for him a lot (and vice versa), which is transgressive in a way given that she is also deeply invested in Ilya. But there seems to be an unquestioned assumption on everyone's part that once Tess commits to Ilya and accepts her role as his wife, she has made a *choice* and her sexual relationship with Kirill must end. WHY? Frankly, I liked Kirill a lot better than Ilya. He is continually reprimanded by everyone for being too forward with women, but I thought he was much more respectful of Tess than Ilya was. Throughout the book I was amazed at how Ilya's attempts to dominate her were met with surprisingly little disapproval from his fellow Jaran. The pieces didn't fit together. (And I don't buy that his behavior was OK because she was not Jaran -- allowing *her* to break the rules because she is an outsider is not the same as allowing *him* to violate the morals of his own society). This post is coming across as a pan of the book, I know. I did enjoy some aspects of it and may even read some of the sequels some day, particularly if some of the issues I have raised are dealt with in a more satisfactory way. Can someone who has read the sequels give me an idea of what to expect? (Spoilers are OK.) -- Janice E. Dawley ............. Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/ Listening to: Hooverphonic -- Blue Wonder Power Milk "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:30:51 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Petra Mayerhofer said: >>Perhaps I am too entrenched in what is policital correct, but was nobody else bothered by that Ilya is some sort of Attila or Genghis Khan, planning to attack Jaran's neighbours? O.k. it was clarified that the neighbours more and more spread out into the area of the Jaran, but is making war really the only solution? Tess did not seem to be bothered either, that the planet is heading into a major war, although that might be because she keeps to their 'primary directive'.<< This is also my concern. It might be that Elliot makes Ilya's jihad more acceptable in sequels, she may even make him more likeable (I don't see how) but I think a book, even part of a series, especially the first part of a series, should be more self contained. Saying all will be explained in the second or third sequel seems to be a bit of a cop out. I can see a continuation of the story line in latter books, but the first should give a more basic sense of the people and societies explored. Janice E. Dawley said >>On another subject... I could not make sense of the sexual customs in the book. Why, in a society that seemed not to value monogamy at all (as distinguished from marriage), was sexual jealousy such a constant theme? I was particularly bothered by the subplot of Tess' relationship with Kirill. Sure, she has sex with him and clearly cares for him a lot (and vice versa), which is transgressive in a way given that she is also deeply invested in Ilya. But there seems to be an unquestioned assumption on everyone's part that once Tess commits to Ilya and accepts her role as his wife, that she has made a *choice* and that her sexual relationship with Kirill must end. WHY? Frankly, I liked Kirill a lot better than Ilya. He is continually reprimanded by everyone for being too forward with women, but I thought he was much more respectful of Tess than Ilya was. << I couldn't say it better. Multiple sexual partners were allowed, but discretion is so important the book seemed to view sex both as completely acceptable and forbidden fruit at the same time. The whole situation of Krill and his new wife and people not knowing that he and Tess had a previous relationship, much less a continuing one, just didn't ring true. I don't think we should make a god of consistency, but this aspect was very annoying to me. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:03:02 -0400 From: Alis Rasmussen Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Jaran To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I've read the BDG discussion of Jaran with interest. It's unusual, I think, for an author to have a chance to eavesdrop on a frank discussion of her work. So often honest opinion gets muted by the habitual 'niceness' that is part of the cultural upbringing of women in our society (well, maybe you all escaped its bitter chains, but I sure didn't). Most of the issues raised were quite ably addressed by various of the respondents, sometimes with better rationales than I might have come up with! I love the term 'stealth feminism,' and would be happy to think that my work fell into such a category. I imagine that most writers, looking back on a book they had published seven years ago, will find infelicities in the text, elements of clumsy execution, or even scenes they now find unreadable. That's certainly true for me with Jaran. There are paragraphs and passages that no longer pass my 'wince test' (i.e., do I wince when I'm reading it?), but I consider it part of the natural evolution of a writer that she improves over time and that therefore earlier works might not be as sophisticated, well-written, and seamless as the later ones we all hope to write someday. Interestingly, there is one scene that I now quite dislike: the 'mock-rape' scene. I know why I put it in, and what points I wanted to make with it, but in retrospect I wish I'd handled it differently. Maybe it would be most correct to say that I wish I'd had the skills then to convey those points with more subtlety and less need to borrow from noxious (but hopefully outmoded) literary conventions. That aside, I think the book accomplishes what it sets out to do. I wouldn't write Jaran now, so I'm glad I wrote it then, because it is the story it's meant to be, no more and no less. It is what my friend and colleague Katharine Kerr calls 'lurid adventure fiction,' owing more to H. Rider Haggard and Edgar Rice Burroughs than to, say, Ursula K. Le Guin (whose work, I feel constrained to add, has been a great inspiration to me), tossed up with a spicing of Jane Austen and Dorothy Sayers and, of course, the movie Lawrence of Arabia. If anyone has any questions, or would like me to respond to specific issues raised in the discussion, please let me know either here or via email. Otherwise: thanks! Best, Alis Rasmussen (aka Kate Elliott)