Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 07:44:46 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: No Name Available Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow: online references, second posting To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU As I sent the below unusually early, I'm repeating it--- I also have the uncanny feeling my posts are being deleted unread Kathleen The Sparrow (Mary Doria Russell) Online related information (Jesuit material at the end) Misc: Mary Russell's home page, with sample from Sparrow, review excerpts, Real Audio NPR review, other info: http://members.stratos.net/druss44121/sparrow.html A Case of Conscience for Mary Doria Russell, by John D. Owen (Sparrow discussed in light of James Blish's A Case of Conscience) http://www.iplus.zetnet.co.uk/nonfiction/sparjdo.htm Tiptree judge comments http://www.tiptree.org/1996/index.html Reviews: reader reviews on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0449912558/davidframbesA/002-9159955- 2151465 Review, SF Weekly, by Susan Dunman http://www.productreviewnet.com/abstracts/5/5986.htm SF Site review by Steven Silver http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/russell.html Lambda SF review by Carl Cipra http://members.aol.com/lambdasf/books/reviews/sparrow2.html Infinity Plus review by Jon Courtenay Grimwood http://www.iplus.zetnet.co.uk/nonfiction/sparjcg.htm Mysterious Galaxy bookstore, short review by Patrick M. Heffernan http://www.mystgalaxy.com/sfarchive.html short review from Cleveland Live by Kelly Bahmer-Brouse http://cleveland.com/ultrafolder/litlife/reviews/sparrow.html personal page reviews: by Matthew Scott Winslow (long review) http://members.theglobe.com/mithlond/sparrow.html by Laurie D. T. Mann http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/essays/sparrow.html by Michael Rawdon http://www.fullfeed.com/~rawdon/books/sf/russell.html#the.sparrow About Jesuits (the Society of Jesus) (I thought, for anyone not hostile from the outset to the topic, that some background info on the Jesuits & history/common myths/conjectures about their involvement with science and exploration might be of interest. After checking out hundreds of sites and multiple searches for an objective secular history, I gave up the search. There are undoubtedly such sources in print or online: anybody who cares to show off can cite them. The below are mostly official Jesuit information sites.) Official sites: General information, history http://www.jesuit.org/ on Jesuits and technology in history http://www.math.luc.edu/~vande/sj/sj_sci.html brief history http://www.fairfield.edu/jesuit/history.htm Malachi Martin: some comments on modernism & the SJ http://www.ascension-research.org/jesuits.html Dirty Laundry: History of the Jesuits by Dr. J. A. Wylie LL.D. (who succumbed to Jesuit poison in 1997) http://www.reformation.org./jesuits.html And, just for the hell of it: The home page (links to wonderful anthropology sites) of Fr. Ray Bucko, S.J., cited in MDR's acknowlegments http://www.lemoyne.edu/academic_affairs/departments/sociology_anthropology/buc ko.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 09:30:49 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow--Oh, No! To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I know it isn't time to start this discussion but I am having trouble getting into this book. I'm about halfway through and I can't seem to finish it. I really hated it that the most important elements of the book were given away -on the back cover-. Who came up with that brilliant marketing idea? Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:05:56 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow--Oh, No! To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I had just the opposite reaction - I had misread the book list and read it last month - I just devoured it, lost way too much sleep to read it. I've been waiting with anticipation for the discussion - I'm now in the middle of the sequel. Sheryl > ---------- > From: Stacey Holbrook[SMTP:ausar@NETDOOR.COM] > Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian > literature > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:30 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow--Oh, No! > > I know it isn't time to start this discussion but I am having trouble > getting into this book. I'm about halfway through and I can't seem to > finish it. I really hated it that the most important elements of the book > were given away -on the back cover-. Who came up with that brilliant > marketing idea? > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 17:17:27 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow discussion starts Monday To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU My guess is that I'm not the only one that's not quite through the book, so hold your horses until Monday when the discussion actually starts. If you put off reading the Sparrow, now would be a good time to get started on it! At 11:05 AM 12/03/98 -0500, you wrote: >I had just the opposite reaction - I had misread the book list and read it >last month - I just devoured it, lost way too much sleep to read it. I've >been waiting with anticipation for the discussion - I'm now in the middle of >the sequel. >Sheryl > >> ---------- >> From: Stacey Holbrook[SMTP:ausar@NETDOOR.COM] >> Reply To: For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian >> literature >> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:30 AM >> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow--Oh, No! >> >> I know it isn't time to start this discussion but I am having trouble >> getting into this book. I'm about halfway through and I can't seem to >> finish it. I really hated it that the most important elements of the book >> were given away -on the back cover-. Who came up with that brilliant >> marketing idea? >> >> Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:59:31 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU OK, it's finally time to talk about The Sparrow. I have to admit I didn't expect to like this book. I mean, knowing up front that darn near everyone dies makes me a bit reluctant to warm up to the characters. Plus I'm not much a fan of organized religion, especially the Catholic church. Neither of these got in the way of me enjoying the book. I liked it a lot. This book did not make me wish I were religious. I just admit defeat right up front at the question of being able to Understand It All. Plus all that abstinence stuff -- aren't there enough things to agonize about it the world without that? How about you -- did the spiritual stuff work for you? The publisher thoughtfully included a bunch of discussion questions for us at the end of the book. Unfortunately, there was only one question I found interesting: - Why did the Jesuits treat Sandoz so harshly before they heard his whole story? Another of their questions was about the Star Trek "prime directive", implying that if the Stella Maris crew had somehow not interfered with the local cultures things might have turned out better. This seems a pointless question, since how could they have known what would have been interference without interfering? In fact I thought this was a strength of the Sparrow -- that it showed the messiness of trying to figure stuff out on your feet with no context whatsoever. Kinda hard to fit that into one-hour TV shows, though; hence the universal translators and sophisticated scanners. Reminds me of how when I played football (US-style) I saw how difficult it was to have any idea what was going on, while it seems so obvious when you're watching it from above. Most of the reviewers praised Russell's characters and I really agree. Some of them, such as Anne and D.W., seemed a little too good to be true. Perhaps I'm just not lucky enough to know anyone quite that witty or I'm just cranky at not getting invited to such charming dinner parties; reading Molly Ivins columns is the closest I come. But I certainly did enjoy the characters and their dialogues, even knowing they were all going to die. Did you believe that a Jesuit-financed group of not-really-experts could mount such an expedition? It seemed plausible enough to me, especially since not everything went perfectly. Finally, some questions most germane to this group: why did this win the Tiptree? Do you agree that it should have won? And was it a feminist book? Only two female characters (human), though they were clearly portrayed in a feminist way. Is that enough to make it feminist? Dive in. Tell us what you really think. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 13:51:30 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Stahl, Sheryl" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > This book did not make me wish I were religious. I just admit defeat right > up front at the question of being able to Understand It All. Plus all that > abstinence stuff -- aren't there enough things to agonize about it the > world without that? How about you -- did the spiritual stuff work for you? Because of the Catholic/Jesuit focus, I would NEVER have picked this book up if it hadn't been on our list. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I think that the religious 'stuff' worked remarkably well. I liked that we got into Sandoz's head and could see his doubts and how he struggled to find answers for his life. > The publisher thoughtfully included a bunch of discussion questions for us > at the end of the book. Unfortunately, there was only one question I found > interesting: > > - Why did the Jesuits treat Sandoz so harshly before they heard his whole > story? I dunno - I found myself falling into that trap also - even though we 'met' him early on and could see how nice/bright/hard working etc. he was. I kept reading to see how he 'went wrong' > Another of their questions was about the Star Trek "prime directive", > implying that if the Stella Maris crew had somehow not interfered with the > local cultures things might have turned out better. This seems a pointless > question, since how could they have known what would have been interference > without interfering? In fact I thought this was a strength of the Sparrow > -- that it showed the messiness of trying to figure stuff out on your feet > with no context whatsoever. Kinda hard to fit that into one-hour TV shows, > though; hence the universal translators and sophisticated scanners. > Reminds me of how when I played football (US-style) I saw how difficult it > was to have any idea what was going on, while it seems so obvious when > you're watching it from above. I'm pretty uninformed about Jesuits, but it seems that the prime directive was never part of their mission - rather the opposite, they sent out missionaries to teach different groups about Jesus/Catholocism etc. - they wanted to influence/change the groups. > Finally, some questions most germane to this group: why did this win the > Tiptree? Do you agree that it should have won? And was it a feminist > book? Only two female characters (human), though they were clearly > portrayed in a feminist way. Is that enough to make it feminist? hhhmmmm. I think that it is a feminist book - the women are treated as human. They are full members of the crew, valued for their opinions, we get to know then as well as the men. I'm not sure I see why it won the Tiptree - I don't really see it as gender bending or re-examining male/female roles or relations. While the Runa have the roles reversed (males care for children; females are the hunters) this isn't really discussed all that much or analyzed - Sandoz just comments on it. sheryl > Dive in. Tell us what you really think. > > Jennifer > jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:05:15 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Caroline Couture Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jennifer sez: > > - Why did the Jesuits treat Sandoz so harshly before they heard his whole > > story? I think one reason why they wanted to blame Sandoz for the failure was because they wanted it to be someone's fault; not an accident and certainly not the fault of God. This is Sandoz's central conflict. Either what happened to them was mere accident, which leaves out the hand of god, or god permitted it to happen which makes god too cruel for Sandoz to believe in. The book reminded me of something I've read about "normal" accidents; each decision on its own seems logical and correct but added together they create something gone horribily wrong. [If anyone is interested the article I'm thinking of was a few years ago in Harper's magazine about what lead up to the Challenger shuttle accident.] At each stage of the book I thought that I would see the point where the landing party went wrong but I didn't see that point until it was too late for it to be changed. Sandoz did ring true for me. I was taught by Jesuits and all of the ones I knew had his same thirst for knowlege. Another thing which might have caused the other Jesuits, and the rest of the world, to turn against Sandoz is that the story of what happend put out by the second party could have seemed believable. Priests and the Church in this century are no strangers to accusations of sexual misconduct. [spoiler space] The only thing that did not ring true for me was Sofia causing them to stuck on Rakhat when she used the lander to fly back to the villiage. Sofia who was so incredibly precise and she didn't stop to make a basic fuel calculation. I after reading this book I immediately got the sequel. In it, as in the first book, things are not what they seem... I really enjoyed both books. Take care, Caroline ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:05:17 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I enjoyed this book, on the level of a good story (not necessarily SF). I didn't place much credence in the contrivances of the plot, however. I enjoyed the characters, however, could not forget about the author, who seemed everpresent. Occasionally, she had fun with words, turning phrases and making jokes, seemingly, for her own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the story (in which case, she would have left them out). Also, the verbal bantor among some of the characters was almost too good to be true. Anne was, obviously, around long enough to be relatively wiser than everyone else, however, she seemed to know all the answers, be ultimately self-assured and had intellectualized all of her baser instincts beyond their causing her any irritation whatever, so why mention them? The author seemed to identify most with Anne, and I felt that she thought a little too highly of herself. I also had trouble with the ease of the journey. How likely is it that monies would be committed to sending a group of pals on a mission which was ostensibly scientific, staffed by few scientists? What I enjoyed most, however, was the exploration of the nature of God and His involvement in our lives. Does He really care what happens to us now that He's made us? Do our prayers have any effect? Is everything we do for Him merely guesswork on our part? And how can we hold on to faith, if we have any, in the face of having all our assumptions about God turned upside down? Ultimately, we are personally, individually, responsible for what we do and think on this issue. Although the author seems to have very strong beliefs about God, she doesn't really say much for His influence in our lives. She seems to be saying, bottom line, we're on our own. And if we believe in God, it's in spite of, not because of, His work in our lives. The author said she chose outer space because it was the only place left for a 'first contact' story. In that sense, she has pasted the garments of SF onto a mainstream story. So, she didn't really write an SF novel. However, if she wanted to discuss the mystery of personal faith, I think she certainly did. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:18:21 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jennifer Krauel wrote: > I have to admit I didn't expect to like this book. I mean, knowing up > front that darn near everyone dies makes me a bit reluctant to warm up to > the characters. This was the big sticking point for me. I -hated- that some super intelligent marketing person gives away that only Sandoz makes it back from Rakhat right on the back cover. I was very reluctant to care about these characters knowing that they were going to bite the dust and probably in a horrible way. Almost against my will I started to really care about the characters. I especially liked Anne. She's exactly the kind of person I would love having as a next door neighbor. One of the things I love about this book is the relationship between Anne and George. How many long term, love relationships do you see in a SF/F novel? Hardly any. The thing that made their relationship very realistic to me was that Anne implies that their marriage hadn't always been a bed of roses and that there might have been a moment of infidelity in the past. I liked it that even though they seemed to have a wonderful marriage there is a sense that they had to work to make it that way. > Another of their questions was about the Star Trek "prime directive", > implying that if the Stella Maris crew had somehow not interfered with the > local cultures things might have turned out better. This seems a pointless > question, since how could they have known what would have been interference > without interfering? It struck me as just a little unrealistic that in all the time that they were preparing the ship and in the months it took to get to Rakhat, they never bothered to develop any kind of protocol for first contact. Not even a vague outline of what they should and shouldn't do. I think it was a mistake that they never even consulted with experts in other fields so that they would have some kind of guideline. My biggest problem with this aspect is that they didn't even consult or better yet bring along a military expert (Yarborough was supposed to have military experience and yet he allowed the entire crew to get into dangerous situations with little information or preparation). And out of all the well educated and intelligent people, not one even considered that growing a garden might be a bad idea. Hello? Isn't agriculture one of the defining moments in human development--- right up there with using fire and inventing the wheel? When I got to this part I -knew- that the gardens would be the pivotal moment that would cause the final tragic events of the book. > In fact I thought this was a strength of the Sparrow -- that it showed > the messiness of trying to figure stuff out on your feet with no > context whatsoever. Kinda hard to fit that into one-hour TV shows, > though; hence the universal translators and sophisticated scanners. > Reminds me of how when I played football (US-style) I saw how > difficult it was to have any idea what was going on, while it seems so > obvious when you're watching it from above. But still, the fact that they spent hardly any time at all observing the planet and monitoring transmissions didn't ring true for me. Practically the minute they get to Rakhat they pile into the lander and joy ride to the planet. > Did you believe that a Jesuit-financed group of not-really-experts could > mount such an expedition? It seemed plausible enough to me, especially > since not everything went perfectly. It seemed realistic but I think the Church would have sent more people and better qualified people. I doubt if Anne and George would have gone simply because of their age. In fact, I would bet that if the Catholic Church was going to send any women at all they would be nuns. > Finally, some questions most germane to this group: why did this win the > Tiptree? Do you agree that it should have won? And was it a feminist > book? Only two female characters (human), though they were clearly > portrayed in a feminist way. Is that enough to make it feminist? I think it would fall into the "feminist" category because the women in the group were well rounded and realistically done. They were not props or there to spur the hero on. I'm not sure why it got the Tiptree, though. The sexual role reversal of the Runa (the males took care of the young, the female were the "bread winners") has been done before. It lead to a couple of cute misunderstandings but honestly it didn't make much difference to the story. In spite of a couple of quibbles, I enjoyed this book and I will recommend it to my friends. > Jennifer > jkrauel@actioneer.com Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 06:57:44 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Book of Job! Old Testament. If you haven't read it, do so. That's where I would begin to get at the cultural roots of Sparrow. It's the main biblical source on the topic of suffering, and very often poetically beautiful literature. Ripe with levels like a Russian doll the Sparrow. Religious or not, it is a historic fact that Christianity and its main books, Bible and others, are an important feature of the cultural heritage of the Western world. Though all the major world's religions have there own answer to the question the book states. Britt-Inger At 13:51 1998-12-07 -0500, you wrote: >> This book did not make me wish I were religious. I just admit defeat right >> up front at the question of being able to Understand It All. Plus all that >> abstinence stuff -- aren't there enough things to agonize about it the >> world without that? How about you -- did the spiritual stuff work for you? > >Because of the Catholic/Jesuit focus, I would NEVER have picked this book up >if it hadn't been on our list. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I >think that the religious 'stuff' worked remarkably well. I liked that we >got into Sandoz's head and could see his doubts and how he struggled to find >answers for his life. > >> The publisher thoughtfully included a bunch of discussion questions for us >> at the end of the book. Unfortunately, there was only one question I found >> interesting: >> >> - Why did the Jesuits treat Sandoz so harshly before they heard his whole >> story? > >I dunno - I found myself falling into that trap also - even though we 'met' >him early on and could see how nice/bright/hard working etc. he was. I kept >reading to see how he 'went wrong' > >> Another of their questions was about the Star Trek "prime directive", >> implying that if the Stella Maris crew had somehow not interfered with the >> local cultures things might have turned out better. This seems a pointless >> question, since how could they have known what would have been interference >> without interfering? In fact I thought this was a strength of the Sparrow >> -- that it showed the messiness of trying to figure stuff out on your feet >> with no context whatsoever. Kinda hard to fit that into one-hour TV shows, >> though; hence the universal translators and sophisticated scanners. >> Reminds me of how when I played football (US-style) I saw how difficult it >> was to have any idea what was going on, while it seems so obvious when >> you're watching it from above. > >I'm pretty uninformed about Jesuits, but it seems that the prime directive >was never part of their mission - rather the opposite, they sent out >missionaries to teach different groups about Jesus/Catholocism etc. - they >wanted to influence/change the groups. > >> Finally, some questions most germane to this group: why did this win the >> Tiptree? Do you agree that it should have won? And was it a feminist >> book? Only two female characters (human), though they were clearly >> portrayed in a feminist way. Is that enough to make it feminist? > >hhhmmmm. I think that it is a feminist book - the women are treated as >human. They are full members of the crew, valued for their opinions, we get >to know then as well as the men. I'm not sure I see why it won the Tiptree >- I don't really see it as gender bending or re-examining male/female roles >or relations. While the Runa have the roles reversed (males care for >children; females are the hunters) this isn't really discussed all that much >or analyzed - Sandoz just comments on it. > >sheryl > >> Dive in. Tell us what you really think. >> >> Jennifer >> jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:57:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I have so many difficulties with this book; I liked it very much, it gave a great deal of food for thought, also a great deal of fuel to the anti-organized religion fire. This was obviously a post-holocaust novel. I could see Sandoz thinking as Jews under Hitler did: finding faith in little things, finding more faith, thinking they knew which direction God had shown them, then facing complete devastation. I don't know how people can keep a faith in guardian angels or spiritual protection of some sort when they have had their lives so completely demolished. I guess many people have faith just because it's too painful not to, not because of an ultimate belief in divine guidance. Why was Sandoz ruined? Wouldn't you have thought that eating babies would have been more ultimately devastating to a person who truly believed in God's beneficence than being sexually assaulted? I think I would have been more devastated by the assault, but I'm not a saint. Do you see Mother Theresa eating babies? And if Sandoz had just refused to eat the babies, as did Marc, he wouldn't have lived long enough to have had his spirit broken by the assaults. Why weren't the Jesuits more sympathetic to Sandoz? I don't know. I have a hard time believing that the Catholic Church 60 years from now won't have revised its stand on priestly celibacy, not if they're going to keep on having priests. And look, all the priests were still male. This pope is going to die, celibacy will become optional and women will be ordained. I just don't see it happening any other way. But, if things don't change, then I guess I can see the animosity. The church is so screwed up about sexuality that they would rather know that one of their own had been raped than that he had enjoyed sex or even used his sexuality because he literally wouldn't have been able to feed himself without it. That idea, I guess, would be the present attitude carried to its most inane extreme. If that attitude is still in effect 20 years from now, then no, I don't think there would be women on the adventure, even an old one or a super intelligent one. Also, having the one married couple too old for childbearing wouldn't have made sense even if the church had revised its stand on the evils of sexuality. Lastly, I have to agree with Stacey, this group with its anthropological and interculteral intelligence would have realized the significance of gardens and would have realized that increasing the food base would have increased the Runa reproductive ability. They would have had some idea that this increase would effect the cultures of the intelligent species even if they weren't sure of the interrelationship of them all. But, in spite of all my disagreements with the book, I did like it. I could see people wanting to believe in something and convincing themselves that that something believed in them and their causes. I liked the fact that Sofia and Jimmy paired up, that she didn't have to pine away for Sandoz, but went on to lead a loving life with someone else. I loved Sandoz's statement that the beautiful, inspirational songs received on earth were pornography, not prayer. It seemed to me that they were both, as the Jana'ata might have understood it. I liked the many different views of relationships and ideas. This is essentially a very irritatingly fascinating book. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 02:59:05 PST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Kate Willshaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Finally, some questions most germane to this group: why did this win the > Tiptree? Do you agree that it should have won? And was it a feminist > book? Only two female characters (human), though they were clearly > portrayed in a feminist way. Is that enough to make it feminist? I heard that the reason it was chosen to win the Tiptree award was because of the way it investigated sexuality (ie both homo- and heterosexuality) and also investigated the choice of becoming celibate when the participants in celibacy were sexual beings and how that choice affected the way the people involved lived their lives. As far as the book is a feminist text - would you not say that all the male characters on the expedition exhibited what are seen as female traits (sensitivity, love, deep feelings). The male protagonists had female charateristics and the female characters were as strong as, if not stronger than, the male characters. I would say that makes it a feminist text. Kate Kate Willshaw Geography department University College Chester Cheyney Road Chester UK ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:48:58 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allen Briggs Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Some comments from the Tiptree judges re: The Sparrow are on-line at http://www.tiptree.org/1996/index.html. More information on the Tiptree award and past recipients may be found at http://www.tiptree.org/. I read The Sparrow after hearing the author read from it at ICFA two years ago (in March, 1997). If I recall correctly, she read in a session with Pat Murphy and Candas Jane Dorsey. I was there mainly to hear Pat Murphy, but enjoyed all three immensely. The Sparrow captivated me in the same way that Clarke's short story _The Star_ did. I think because it's imaginative "hard" science fiction, feminist, and it challenges my assumptions and preconceptions about religion and aliens (or alien portrayals). Incidentally, Russell said that she'd received a number of letters from Jesuits who loved the book and found some aspects of the Jesuit portrayals to be spot on. I found that to be interesting in light of the fact that the author isn't catholic... -allen -- Allen Briggs - briggs@ninthwonder.com Try free *nix: http://www.netbsd.org/, http://www.freebsd.org/, http://www.linux.org/, http://www.openbsd.org/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:35:05 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU It seems a bit like cheating, but I am reposting this message I wrote on 14 Dec 1997: Since this novel won the Tiptree Award for 1996, I expected to find something provocative regarding gender or sex roles, but I was disappointed. There is somewhat of a reversal in that the Runa females are the adventurous, roving sex and the males stay at home caring for the children, but this detail was fairly unimportant in the context of the novel. We never get into the heads of any of the Runa (except very briefly Supaari's secretary, near the end of the book -- I longed to learn more about her), even though the main characters spend the majority of their time with the Runa. In contrast, we learn quite a bit about the males of the Jana'ata (the females remain offstage). Now that I think about it, it almost feels like the two species play against one another in a stereotyped male/female way -- the communal, peaceful Runa as the females and the predacious, highly "cultural" Jana'ata as the males. By my count, there are only three actual females that play important roles in the book. 1) Anne Edwards, the middle-aged mother figure; 2) Sofia Mendes, the sexualized figure who tempts the main character to break his vow of celibacy; 3) Askama, the verbally facile, trusting Runa girl-child. Anne and Sofia are quite a bit more complex than that sounds. Anne is smart, outspoken & sexual. Sofia is a genius and writes the artificial intelligence routine that pilots Emilio home; she also changes history by teaching the Runa that they are many, while the Jana'ata are few. But... I felt troubled by the spin put on each character. Anne seemed to exist just to "fix" other people. The shoulder to cry on, the supportive wise one who always knew how to draw someone out & ease their pain. Sofia was the tough, ultra-competent professional with a painful past whose healing came in the form of a heterosexual relationship and pregnancy. Askama was the loyal innocent whose death was the final blow to Emilio's fading sanity. These all seem very familiar roles for females. Those who have read the book -- am I crazy? What did you think of the book and its characterizations of females? I'm inspired to write this message because I liked the book (could barely put it down), but felt a lingering discomfort with some of its elements. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Tori Amos -- From the Choirgirl Hotel "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:25:11 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: No Name Available Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Gotta say, right off, this is the first BDG book I've enjoyed reading in many months. I don't see this as a particularly feminist book, except in the broadest, vaguest terms. And I didn't think it deserved a Tiptree, eccentric as those awards and nominations have been. I read the judges' rationales, which were quasi-persuasive, but I still don't believe the handling of male sexuality or male rape were unique enough to merit the award. It's not even terribly good sf. But I'm grateful I was pushed to read the book--- I bought this nearly a year ago, along with several other books that included Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I was so utterly disgusted with the Tepper that I shelved Sparrow, unread: I couldn't pick up another book dealing with religion, expecting the same crude, knee-jerk bashing that seems de rigeur in fsf. The thing is, it's possible to be raised Catholic and reject Catholicism for its attitudes on women [or other reasons] and still not be ignorant of or hostile to all other aspects of that religion, its system of thought, the women and men of its history, or its metaphysical underpinnings. And its sensual, mental, and emotional appeal. The catalytic phrase for me in this book was "culturally Catholic." I've got to talk about this book in little memos, I'm so short on time these next two months. But more to come Kathleen ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:09:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow & The Tiptree Award To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 08:35 PM 12/08/98 -0500, Janice wrote: >Since this novel won the Tiptree Award for 1996, I expected to find >something provocative regarding gender or sex roles, but I was >disappointed. Plus Janice wrote all kinds of other excellent points I completely agree with. Jana'ata as male, Runa as female (interesting hand mutilation/foot binding parallel here). The three female characters as predictable female roles, albeit with interesting spins. Seems like a big stretch for me that exploring celibacy and male rape is Tiptree award material, but I have too much respect for the Tiptree awards gang to make a serious complaint. It was a well-written, engaging story with great characters and lots to think about. But feminism and gender exploration are not its strong suits. Jennifer jkrauel@actioneer.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:43:39 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jeri Wright Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I also enjoyed the book more than I expected to. I was originally put off by reviews mentioning religion, Jesuits, and the search for God. Also, because knowing from the beginning that everyone except Sandoz dies puts a certain distance to my relationship with the characters. (I disagree, BTW, that the cover is a spoiler, since you learn that pretty close to the beginning of the book anyway.) The distance did exist, and I also found the back-and-forth between the beginning of the mission and Sandoz's return a bit annoying. But the discussions about religion and God were made palatable because the whole book is in the form of a question, not an answer. I wasn't all that interested in the idea of God, but I was interested in how it affected the characters. I couldn't help getting interested in the characters, yet not fully involved; so much so that even the deaths did not have the emotional impact they may otherwise have had. Probably because I spent the entire book anticipating even worse ends for them than what really did happen. OTOH, the distance did make the grimness and gloom easier to deal with. I did have a hard time believing that the expedition sets off in 2019, since 20 years from now doesn't seem like enough lead time for being ready for a trip to another star. Sometimes it seems like we'll be lucky to be to Mars by then, given budget constraints and so on. As to whether it's a feminist book, I guess that depends on your definition. It doesn't particularly explore female vs. male issues, but it does show female characters in roles of strength and equality. -- Jeri Wright destrier@richmond.infi.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:45:17 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I really enjoyed reading this book, but I had two major problems with it, both of which have been gently touched upon. First: the author says that she wrote the book to show that smart, educated people making good choices could still cause total destruction of a foreign culture. (Apparently the protests of the 500th anniversary of Columbus's trip inspired her.) But I spotted a huge number of damaging influences before the actual damage was played out. Just the presence of aliens seemed the sort of thing to make tremendous changes in a culture; and as someone else has pointed out, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural is a profound change. So our heroes were basically a bunch of excited people without the brains to tell that Star Trek's Prime Directive is not actually upheld in the series. This grated on me more and more as time went by. Not to mention the intrinsic ridiculousness of sending a bunch of missionaries off to make contact without changing the culture. Second: the ending came as a total anticlimax to me. I waited and waited and waited to hear what was going to me the mindbendingly hideous trauma, worse than having his hands destroyed (for long term damage, that has got to be the worst thing I can imagine), and then-rape? What the hell? The Jesuit administration puts its best men on psych detail for weeks, months, because one of their boys was raped? And we are supposed to sympathize, to feel that this is just about the worst thing we've ever heard of? Especially with all that Sonia (do I have the name right?) went through as a twelve-year-old, it left a really really bad taste in my mouth. I understood, eventually, that the point was supposed to be that it was some cosmic violation by god and therefore worse (still kinda makes me itch), but I only ever figured it out in a very intellectual kind of way. I think Russell may have counted on more of an understanding, which I think was a flaw. Don't get me wrong-I don't mean to downplay the devastating effects that rape has on many, many people. On the contrary, that's exactly why this portrayal bothered me. I felt we were supposed to feel like it counted more, like somehow this was a really different thing than, say, all the other rapes we've heard about. As I said, I eventually understood what she was trying to use as the distinction; but it just left me cold. This really bums me out, because I had such a good time reading the book. *sigh* jessie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 22:41:16 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Jeri Wright wrote: (snip) > (I disagree, BTW, that the cover is a spoiler, since you learn that > pretty close to the beginning of the book anyway.) I guess I should mention that I wasn't too thrilled with the dire foreshadowing from the very first page any more than I liked having the plot laid out on the back cover. Too much foreshadowing lead me to believe that something horrific was going to happen to all of the characters and when it finally did it was almost anticlimactic. In fact, so much of the book was spent with a "something terrible is going to happen" feeling that when the characters finally do bite the dust the scenes are practically skimmed over. Also, I think the back cover should be tantalizing and entice a potential customer into buying the book. If it weren't for the fact that I like participating in the BDG, I would have put *The Sparrow* back on the shelf. Between the spoiler on the back cover and the heavy foreshadowing, my enjoyment of TS was somewhat reduced. In spite of my complaints, though, I really did enjoy this book and I am glad I read it. > I couldn't help getting interested in the characters, yet not fully > involved; so much so that even the deaths did not have the emotional > impact they may otherwise have had. Probably because I spent the entire > book anticipating even worse ends for them than what really did happen. > OTOH, the distance did make the grimness and gloom easier to deal with. I wish the author hadn't pulled her punches and let the deaths of the characters happen "on screen" instead of being told by Sandoz. Being told about their slaughter gave their deaths (and the deaths of the Runa babies) less of an impact. > Jeri Wright > destrier@richmond.infi.net Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 23:42:03 -0600 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Melissa Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Delurking with some thoughts about whether The Sparrow is a feminist novel. First, the shortage of female characters isn't really an issue in this debate - a novel with no female characters could still be feminist depending on the plot and themes of the book. Second, I think the criticism that the female characters are somewhat steretypical is justified, although for me the complexity of the characters compensates for this. On one level, Sofia is a traditional ingenue/love interest type heroine, but her past as a prostitute complicates this characterization considerably. All the characters initially appear to be familiar types, but Russell invites us to re-examine those types by fleshing them out with some unexpected details (another example of this is D. W.'s homosexuality). Just when you think you are on familiar ground, she yanks the rug out from under you. . . . I found this to be a profoundly feminist novel, primarily due to the themes of autonomy and ownership that are prominent in the story. The rape of a man, in and of itself, doesn't make this a feminist novel, but this is connected to a much larger issue about control and possession of your body, mind and soul. As a child, Sofia sold her body to survive; as an adult her intellectual talents are brokered by the man who "rescued" her from her "plight". She is still selling herself to survive. When her contract is bought out, it takes years for her to adjust to the idea that she is free to do as she chooses. Until his conversion experience on Rakhat, Emilio is struggling to give up control of both his body and his mind to the church and, by extension, to God. Once he has surrendered this control, he trusts that God will protect him, or at the very least, give his suffering meaning. Instead he is not only raped, but raped repeatedly in circumstances which literally reduce him to the status of an animal or an object, denied even speach (these metaphors are frequently used by rape survivors to describe their responses to their experiences, but in Emilio's case the metaphor is actualized). In this context, his rape is more disturbing than the devastation of his hands, because it is a mockery of both the sacrifice Emilio made of his autonomy and of the trust that he placed in God. As Giuliani says, "I'm sitting here trying to understand why it seemed less awful when I thought it was prostitution. It's the same physical act. . . .I suppose a prostitute has at least an illusion of control. It's a transaction. There is some element of consent." Melissa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:30:28 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >Don't get me wrong-I don't mean to downplay the devastating effects >that rape has on many, many people. On the contrary, that's exactly >why this portrayal bothered me. I felt we were supposed to feel like >it counted more, like somehow this was a really different thing than, >say, all the other rapes we've heard about. As I said, I eventually >understood what she was trying to use as the distinction; but it just >left me cold. > >This really bums me out, because I had such a good time reading the >book. *sigh* > >jessie She just might have wanted to give an image to men of how devastating rape is so that they may be able to empathise more with women. Many men do not understand the havoc it creates in the victim and the life long trauma. As to the psychological credibility, men being raped by other men have in studies been seen to be extremely traumatised due to the rampant homophobia that many still harbour. Britt-Inger ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 06:55:24 -0700 Reply-To: camiller@gte.net Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cathie Miller Subject: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie wrote: > Don't get me wrong-I don't mean to downplay the devastating effects > that rape has on many, many people. On the contrary, that's exactly > why this portrayal bothered me. I felt we were supposed to feel like > it counted more, like somehow this was a really different thing than, > say, all the other rapes we've heard about. As I said, I eventually > understood what she was trying to use as the distinction; but it just > left me cold. This is exactly right-on, and that's why I don't feel this book was particularly feminist (not that the author set out to write a 'feminist' story, but just a curiosity re: the Tiptree award--but that's because of the gender exploration). I didn't see where, as someone mentioned, women were in a place of equality, either. The power figures were male. But it continually amazes me when I read about a man being raped and I know the author expects to elicit a particularly horrorified response. What, is it extra-offensive because of the orifice? Like, women don't get it there? Or, is it the thought of man vs man, the same-sex thing, that's supposed to make this more devastating? It just seems to me that we are expected to (and what the hell, maybe we do) feel that a man being degraded and having his power taken from him is more disgusting than when this happens to a woman. I enjoyed this book. But it would have been nice to see this book written in this way: in the same future wherein we can reasonably be taking such a trip, there are now female Jesuits, and Emilio's character is female. Chris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 22:00:25 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Sharon Hill Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Chris wrote: >But it continually amazes me when I read about a man being raped >and I know the author expects to elicit a particularly horrorified >response. What, is it extra-offensive because of the orifice? Like, >women don't get it there? Or, is it the thought of man vs man, the >same-sex thing, that's supposed to make this more devastating? It just >seems to me that we are expected to (and what the hell, maybe we do) >feel that a man being degraded and having his power taken from him is >more disgusting than when this happens to a woman. > >I enjoyed this book. But it would have been nice to see this book written in >this way: in the same future wherein we can reasonably be taking such a >trip, there are now female Jesuits, and Emilio's character is female. > >Chris The rape of Emilio is horrible, I think, not because he's a man, but because he had surrendered to God's will completely. He had finally opened himself up to God and then this happened. Emilio's body was violated, but even worse, his soul was violated. I really enjoyed this book, but it's really about faith, not gender issues... delurking briefly, Sharon ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:58:00 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 10:00 PM 12/10/98 -0500, Sharon wrote: >The rape of Emilio is horrible, I think, not because he's a man, but because >he had surrendered to God's will completely. He had finally opened himself >up to God and then this happened. Emilio's body was violated, but even >worse, his soul was violated. > >I really enjoyed this book, but it's really about faith, not gender >issues... The crisis of faith is what made this book memorable and worth my efforts for me. I must admit that the second book is in the To Be Read pile and probably won't be unearthed soon. It isn't because I hated the first book, it's just that Sparrow was exhausting to read, and I can't do that all the time. I must be going through a mini-crisis of faith as well. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:22:25 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/6/98 11:07:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, jkrauel@ACTIONEER.COM writes: >Another of their questions was about the Star Trek "prime directive", implying that if the Stella Maris crew had somehow not interfered with the local cultures things might have turned out better. >> -- personally, I've always profoundly disapproved of this "Game Parks for Natives" approach, which assumes that the locals have to be kept poor, ignorant and powerless so they'll make quaint pots and do authentic traditional dancing. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:30:06 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Britt-Inger Johansson Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU For those who are interested in the faith issues of the Sparrow I would recommend to read the autobiography of St John of the Cross, a 17th century carmelite monk who established the concept of *the soul's dark night*. There are interesting links that may add a depth and furthering understanding of the spiritual aspects of TS. BTW the follow up on The Sparrow is nowhere near as grim, even the author was depressed by her book and claims she had to write about how Sandoz' return to life as well. Britt-Inger At 19:58 1998-12-10 -0800, you wrote: >At 10:00 PM 12/10/98 -0500, Sharon wrote: > >>The rape of Emilio is horrible, I think, not because he's a man, but because >>he had surrendered to God's will completely. He had finally opened himself >>up to God and then this happened. Emilio's body was violated, but even >>worse, his soul was violated. >> >>I really enjoyed this book, but it's really about faith, not gender >>issues... > >The crisis of faith is what made this book memorable and worth my efforts >for me. I must admit that the second book is in the To Be Read pile and >probably won't be unearthed soon. It isn't because I hated the first book, >it's just that Sparrow was exhausting to read, and I can't do that all the >time. I must be going through a mini-crisis of faith as well. > >Cynthia >-- >"I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." >-Matt Ruff in Sewer, Gas, and Electric >Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:18:37 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG Sparrow Comments: To: camiller@GTE.NET To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I feel like a crab when I say this, but I was very glad to be done with this book, as it annoyed me. I liked the question of spirituality, but I didn't like the way the book was crafted. As others have said, the flashbacks were gimicky-- I felt they were designed to keep me reading. And as the story progressed it seemed a bit sadistic-- I was waiting to see how she'd kill the crew off, and, because I was really annoyed with some of the characters, I was imagining how I would like to see them killed off. (that sounds harsher than I mean it-- but the reader is put in this position) The character of Anne was based on the author. (She tells us this in the "handy" interview at the end of the book) And I have to echo Chris and say that she seemed a bit too clever and good to be likeable. Also, (I know I'm on a rant-- forgive me) there were many references to pop culture-- Father Guido Sarducci, (old) Star Trek, the guy on the old American Express Commercials, etc. All these references are from the pop culture of the baby boomers. But the characters would be about 30 or younger at the turn of the century, too young to really have all this pop. culture be fodder for humor. Where are the Beavis and Butthead jokes? (my attempt at humor here) But to make this worse, I just thought all the jokes the characters made were unfunny, corny and tedious. Ugh. This prevented me for "going along for the ride" as I would have liked to do. Cathie Miller wrote > What I enjoyed most, however, was the exploration of the nature of God > and His involvement in our lives. Does He really care what happens to > us now that He's made us? Do our prayers have any effect? > Although the author seems to have very strong beliefs about God, > she doesn't really say much for His influence in our lives. She seems > to be saying, bottom line, we're on our own. In the end she Sandoz realizes that one can't ask God for anything, not even meaning or reason-- but he is reassured that God does witness and he does not forget. I actually find this a satisfying conclusion, and given the author's conversion to Judaism, it's meaningful-- as someone else said on the list, this is definitely a post-holocaust book. But I felt that she knew this conclusion all along (another unfortunate consequence of the flashbacks) and that there was no surprise for her as a writer, and little surprise for us as readers. --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:27:51 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Stacey Holbrook wrote: And out of all the well educated and intelligent people, not one even > considered that growing a garden might be a bad idea. Hello? Isn't > agriculture one of the defining moments in human development--- right up > there with using fire and inventing the wheel? When I got to this part I > -knew- that the gardens would be the pivotal moment that would cause the > final tragic events of the book. > > > In fact I thought this was a strength of the Sparrow -- that it showed > > the messiness of trying to figure stuff out on your feet with no > > context whatsoever. I would have found this a strength if the book wasn't so set on realism, and things could have been taken more metaphorically. But as it is, we are forced to consider why the crew totally disreguarded all the studies that we have now which show how anthropological, colonial contact and radically alter indiginous cultures and environments. Although the crew went with "good intentions", wanting to hear songs and exchanged knowledge, I was left with the feeling that the crew assumed these people were there for them to study, They cared about them, and tried to help, but it seemed odd that this was never a dilemma. I also saw the garden as a big "oops" and wondered why there was no forshadowing, why no one protested, particularly Anne. I thought it might work well symbollically, as a reference to Eden and the Fall. But the book is not really working on that level, so I didn't know what to make of it. --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:38:49 +0000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Allyson Shaw Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Britt-Inger Johansson wrote: > Book of Job! Old Testament. If you haven't read it, do so. That's where I > would begin to get at the cultural roots of Sparrow. It's the main biblical > source on the topic of suffering, and very often poetically beautiful > literature. Yes! I think the Book of Job is even mentioned in The Sparrow. But in the Book of Job, Job complains to his peers and to God of God's (in)justice. He's lost all his property and family, and his peers beg him to be humble. Then finally God speaks to him and shows him the universe-- (the most beautiful part of the book) the wonder and complexity. He humbles Job. In The Sparrow, Sandoz is Job, as well as a Christ-figure (yeah, high-school English coming in handy). In a way, Sandoz does see the universe, and he never reconciles it spiritually. (at least in an interesting way-- we are left seeing him from the outside-- DW calls him a saint, etc. but we never see this spiritual process, which is too bad-- it would have been a more daring novel. But I may be asking too much.) But he is also like Jesus (especially the way the story is told-- we know the end at the beginning, just like the story of Jesus' life) Jesus knows he must die, and in the Garden of Getheseme (sp?) he must reconcile God's will. How does he do it? I don't know-- but I wondered why Sandoz saw God's will as just black and white-- either God cares or he doesn't. How could this be? There are infinite possiblities in between, (Jesus' death is an example of this) and I didn't believe Sandoz could be so simplistic. His character (the only one I liked) seemed more complicated than that. --Allyson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:54:43 GMT+1000 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Katherine Dall Organization: ELM Macquarie University Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I liked this book a lot. Not only did it make me think about a heap of issues I might never otherwise have thought of, it also got me thinking about familiar issues from a very different perspective. And it had wonderfully likable characters to boot. I do think, though, that experiences of this novel will vary quite widely according to the positioning of different readers. For me, raised as a good little liberal-scientific atheist, the elaborate theological and intellectual structures of the Catholic Church have always been fascinatingly alien - a source of awe and wonder [mainly at the sheer amount of intelligence, erudition and genuine emotion that goes into justifying belief in something I can only regard as absolute tripe]. Since my only previous encounter with Jesuits has been in valiantly trying to understand the world-view behind Gerald Manley Hopkins' stunningly gorgeous poetry as an undergrad, I was quite prepared to attempt the intellectual leap again. For me, the Jesuits were the real aliens in this novel. As has already been pointed out, the Runa were nothing unusual - the peaceful, vegetarian society complete with gender role reversal is pretty familiar to anyone who has read much SF over the past 20 years or so. And the Jana'ata seemed like your average economic rationalist capitalist ruling class, though that could just be my paranoia talking. The social structure of the predator-prey relation was pretty interesting, but more on that later. The only way of thinking I had any difficulty in understanding was Emilio's. And it was the clash of his world view with Anne's [and my] liberal democratic feminist viewpoint that was the real "contact" drama in the novel, IMO. It's pretty easy to see, however, that anyone who was raised a Catholic is unlikely to read the novel in this way, and is probably going to get pissed off at the undemandingness of the more obvious contact drama, or, in some cases, with Russell's projected portrayal of the structures of the church. For this outsider though, the recognition that an institution that thinks and acts in completely different ways to those I would consider logical and practical still has the money and the power to act in whatever completely screwball manner it sees fit is worth putting serious thought into. I saw the whole problem of the financing and staffing of the mission from this perspective. To all those who have complained that the capitalist pigs would never finance such a mission, that better qualified people would have been sent, that directives for first contact would have been set, etc, well yes, of course that's how those who currently have the power to run space programmes would do it. The point is, however, that there are plenty of other people around who could get hold of necessary resources given sufficient motivation, and who have completely different sets of priorities. The Jesuits have plenty of money and an honoured tradition of missionary work. They HAD directives for contact - to go meet God's other children, and presumably, to save their souls. And they sent a group of pals because they believed in Emilio's conviction that God had chosen those particular people. Scientific and religious qualification was incidental, though the fact that the group was qualified no doubt helped them believe that God was working in a reasonably sensible way on this occasion. Within its own logic, it makes perfect sense. This also raises the question of who else might want to mount a similar mission and for what reasons. I have lots more to say on this fascinating novel, but this is plenty long enough, so it will have to wait for another day. But just one aside on the gratuitous Aussie jokes: "There's no such thing as beer too warm to drink." This is outrageous slander. We have refrigeration and we know how to use it. Kate. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 14:17:57 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >-- personally, I've always profoundly disapproved of this "Game Parks >for Natives" approach, which assumes that the locals have to be kept >poor, ignorant and powerless so they'll make quaint pots and do >authentic traditional dancing. Seems to me that once you're watching the dancing and buying the pots, you've failed at non-interference. "Keeping natives poor, ignorant and powerless" assumes a relationship between the natives and the non-natives, right? "Poor" is relative, so is "powerless". The presence of aliens, no matter what they do, is going to have a profound impact on almost any community. (And by "aliens" I mean any group meeting another group which had previously believed itself to be alone.) I felt that Russell really dodged this issue by making the Runa so non-introspective. She says several times that she wanted to show how hard it is to guess what will cause problems; but it didn't seem she'd thought it through at all. Maybe the problem is that we are all science fiction readers, and she is not really a science fiction writer. So we're able to immediately see flaws, obvious stereotypes, things like that. I can come up with a dozen problems with their contact plan off the top of my head. What if the appearance of angels from the sky signifies the time of worldwide suicide to ascend to heaven? What if the Runa had been violent, or had thought them animals, or had been smart enough to reverse-engineer the lander, or... With a really alien mindset, if you want to do the smart thing, that can't possibly harm the aliens -- you stay away. Sure, that's boring. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:16:29 -0500 Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: suzanne feldman Organization: or lack thereof Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: > Maybe the problem is that we are all science fiction readers, and she > is not really a science fiction writer. So we're able to immediately > see flaws, obvious stereotypes, things like that. I can come up with a > dozen problems with their contact plan off the top of my head. I'm so torn about this. On the one hand, Mary Russell extricated herself from what can be a morass of stereotyped lit--namely SF. This unusual, thoughtful book with a lot of SF conventions was marketed as a mainstream novel and has been incredibly successful. It either gives you hope for the whole genre (that we may rise, RISE, RISE!) or makes you want to wring your hands for the non-SF readers who loved it, but will never EVER pick up a book from the SF section of the bookstore. I have to insert here that I know Mary personally and traveled to Italy this past fall with her and my family. Her next book (not SF) has to do with the Jewish refugees in Northern Italy during WWII, and my father is a survivor of just that situation. Through bizarre karma and STRANGE luck, we all hooked up together and spent 2 weeks together in Cuneo and Genoa. She's one of the most interesting, firmly Feminist, intelligent and honest women I've ever met. THE SPARROW may not be the best book ever written, but in my opinion, it is definitely a firmly Feminist, intelligent, and deeply honest work. Suze/Severna ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:02:31 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/12/98 3:19:04 PM Mountain Standard Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM writes: >"Keeping natives poor, ignorant and powerless" assumes a relationship between the natives and the non-natives, right? -- yes, and arrogating to yourself the right to control the degree and nature of contact is certainly a power relationship, I'd say. Why not let _them_ pick what they'd like? Ie., the subtext is: "We won't give you X or Y or Z, poor dears, because we understand better than you what your interests are. Now, run along and play!" Not making contact is also an expression of the power relationship, too, of course. >Maybe the problem is that we are all science fiction readers, and she is not really a science fiction writer. So we're able to immediately see flaws, obvious stereotypes, things like that. -- oh, certainly. The problem with non-genre writers is that they come up with things that have been done and redone for 60 years, and think they're being original when they 'reinvent the wheel'... 8-). Margaret Atwood had the same problem with the (quite good) "Handmaid's Tale". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 01:18:19 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU When reading one of the background pages for the novel I was surprised to see that The Sparrow is going to be made into a movie starring Antonio Banderas as Emilio. (I can't really see him as the ravaged, depressed, haunted Jesuit, but he'll be a great draw). So I was thinking about who else could star. Anthony Hopkins would be perfect as George, Kathy Bates as Anne, because she can play anything and should be in all movies; that Latin lover guy from Suddenly Susan is just cute enough to be Marc; and Randy Quaid is the only goofy enough looking Texan I could think of to play D. W.. How about Kevin Spacey as the weasely inquisitor? Jimmy and Sofia are the hard ones. Well, who could be big and clumsy and sweet enough for Jimmy? Maybe Edward Norton but he'd have to bulk up again, big is the operative word here. I can see Hollywood and Antonio Banderas casting Salma Hayek as the ravishingly lovely Sofia--saved from prostitution by males who are able to see past her sexuality to her strength, determination and intelligence. All the men would fall in love with her heaving bosom, flashing eyes, tousled hair. But a heaving-bosomed Sofia just doesn't make it. She should have that same severe, bland persona presented by Uma Thurman in Gatica but shorter and darker. Then it came to me -- Janeane Garofalo. She could keep her tough New Yorker attitude, black T-shirts, black finger nails and chunky black watch, but she'd need careful direction to make sure that radiant smile of hers didn't creep through and make her look the ingenue. Cute wouldn't cut it any better than heaving bosoms. I do think the book is feminist. As has been said Christ-like figures (Emilio) present feminine characteristics. I see the men and women (aside from the Jesuit hierarchy back home) as feminists. But then I do see humanists as feminists, I don't think a distinction needs to be made. To me the essence of feminism is to see women as whole people with self determination, choice, competence, and social conscience. But I'm thinking this movie is going to fall far from that ideal. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:51:50 -0400 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: marie Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Maybe the problem is that we are all science fiction readers, and she is not really a science fiction writer. So we're able to immediately see flaws, obvious stereotypes, things like that. -- oh, certainly. The problem with non-genre writers is that they come up with things that have been done and redone for 60 years, and think they're being original when they 'reinvent the wheel'... 8-). Margaret Atwood had the same problem with the (quite good) "Handmaid's Tale". Could you please be a little more specific about where Attwood reinvented in 'Handmaid's Tale'? I have been given it as a SF classic, but certainly the studies I've come across have been written mainly by non SF people. Marie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:03:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] Sparrow -Tangent To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU <..... And I didn't think it deserved a Tiptree, eccentric as those awards and nominations have been......> Just wanted to offer this bit on Tiptree nominations (clipped from the SF3 site), it seems any of us is eligible to nominate books and stories. Perhaps we FSFFU members could really focus on this one year (1999?)and see what "influence" we could bring to bear? "How to Support the Tiptree Award" "1. Make recommendations to the Tiptree judges from your reading. If you find an SF/F story or a novel that you think bends gender in an interesting way, suggest the title to the judges. (Mail all recommendations to Karen Joy Fowler, 3404 Monte Vista, Davis, CA 95616 or email to kjfowler@aol.com)" peaceful holidays to all, donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:12:20 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Pat Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, marie wrote: > Could you please be a little more specific about > where Attwood reinvented in 'Handmaid's Tale'? I > have been given it as a SF classic, but certainly > the studies I've come across have been written > mainly by non SF people. > Marie For one thing, it's a near-perfect prequel to Heinlein's REVOLT IN 2100. Same culture different ends of the arc. Heinlein wrote REVOLT 50 years ago. > Patricia (Pat) Mathews mathews@unm.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:37:09 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Yes, but if there's enough of an inherent power imbalance to begin with (due to technology), it's possible that the more advanced culture could bring the less advanced one ideas and things completely beyond their comprehension; how is the less advanced culture supposed to pick what they want, when even knowing what the options are will affect them irrevocably? And if aliens had brought humans atomic weapons during WWI, and we'd destroyed the planet because we didn't understand the consequences, would we blame ourselves for asking them for "the ultimate weapon", or would we blame them for giving it to us? How about if they didn't tell us what the consequences would be? How about if they had, but we didn't believe them? The less advanced culture is GOING to be at the mercy of the more advanced one; there's really no way around that, that I can see. I could be wrong, though; anybody got any other ideas? -Sandy -----Original Message----- From: S.M. Stirling [mailto:JoatSimeon@AOL.COM] Sent: Sunday, December 13, 1998 11:03 AM To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins In a message dated 12/12/98 3:19:04 PM Mountain Standard Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM writes: >"Keeping natives poor, ignorant and powerless" assumes a relationship between the natives and the non-natives, right? -- yes, and arrogating to yourself the right to control the degree and nature of contact is certainly a power relationship, I'd say. Why not let _them_ pick what they'd like? Ie., the subtext is: "We won't give you X or Y or Z, poor dears, because we understand better than you what your interests are. Now, run along and play!" Not making contact is also an expression of the power relationship, too, of course. >Maybe the problem is that we are all science fiction readers, and she is not really a science fiction writer. So we're able to immediately see flaws, obvious stereotypes, things like that. -- oh, certainly. The problem with non-genre writers is that they come up with things that have been done and redone for 60 years, and think they're being original when they 'reinvent the wheel'... 8-). Margaret Atwood had the same problem with the (quite good) "Handmaid's Tale". ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:51:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >>"Keeping natives poor, ignorant and powerless" assumes a relationship >>between the natives and the non-natives, right? > >-- yes, and arrogating to yourself the right to control the degree and nature >of contact is certainly a power relationship, I'd say. Why not let _them_ >pick what they'd like? > >Ie., the subtext is: "We won't give you X or Y or Z, poor dears, because we >understand better than you what your interests are. Now, run along and play!" No, that's absolutely not what I said. I said, since we have no understanding of their culture and *don't* understand what their interests are, we cannot choose an interaction that is harmless. Therefore, it seems that the responsible thing to do is to stay out of in until we/they are smart enough to actually know what a given action will do. Can we find counterexamples, such as small communities which are about to be destroyed by some natural disaster, from which only we can save them? Sure. But gosh, it would be embarassing if that group had voluntarily sacrificed itself as part of, I don't know, the sealing of a peace treaty. We'd feel so bad when the rest of the continent erupted in genocidal war, eradicating millenia of alien culture and reducing the population to a non-viable level. Particularly with a truly alien culture, we have *no idea* what our actions would do. This was my original point about what I saw as the flaws in Russell's idea of a "non-interventionist contact". >Not making contact is also an expression of the power relationship, too, of >course. But if you look at it that way, then making contact is also an expression of the power relationship. It assumes that we have something to give them, and that it's something that they want. I wouldn't want some alien looking at us and saying, "Gosh, they die so fast. Let's give them all eternal life." To reduce the idea of "the power relationship" to "a situation in which one group can make a choice that another group cannot make" doesn't leave much room to manuever, does it? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't see how this view can add information to the system. jessie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:55:09 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/13/98 10:56:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, hable@BIGFOOT.COM writes: >Could you please be a little more specific about where Attwood reinvented in 'Handmaid's Tale'? I have been given it as a SF classic, but certainly the studies I've come across have been written mainly by non SF people. -- the religious dictatorship idea has a long history in SF (Heinlein springs to mind); so does the misogynist dystopia, etc. In fact, "Revolt in 2100" even anticipated the "handmaids", sort of. Of course, Atwood is a wonderful stylist, and her treatment of character is full of depth and complexity -- things which the pulp-era SF writers generally weren't... 8-). Soon after "Handmaid's Tale" came out, Atwood's agent wandered into Bakka, Toronto's speciality SF store. She saw it on the shelf there and exclaimed: "What's this doing here? This isn't science fiction!" Sigh. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:57:48 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/14/98 2:23:34 AM Mountain Standard Time, hoop5@EMAIL.MSN.COM writes: >The Sparrow is going to be made into a movie starring Antonio Banderas as Emilio. -- on the one hand, it would be nice to see a first-rate SF novel made into a high-powered movie. On the other hand, a number of my friends work in Hollywood, and they've reinforced my conviction that the turkeys running the place could ruin anything. (I once asked one of the friends, a woman who wrote for Star Trek for some years, what Hollywood's problem was. She paused, thought, and said: "They're all such a bunch of chicken***ts.") ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:02:24 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/14/98 10:39:28 AM Mountain Standard Time, sandy.candioglos@INTEL.COM writes: >how is the less advanced culture supposed to pick what they want, when even knowing what the options are will affect them irrevocably? -- well, when one of the tribes of central New Guinea was first contacted (by air) by outsiders, they took a long look at the aircraft and then immediately started trying to persuade the pilot to fly them over their neighbors, so they could drop rocks on them... Contact with strangers, and the changes this introduces, are the common lot of human kind. You only stop changing when you're dead. >How about if they had, but we didn't believe them? -- well, that would be our problem. OTOH, how about: "Well, we can cure all your diseases, but we don't think you're ready for that yet. Sorry." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:05:16 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/14/98 10:55:29 AM Mountain Standard Time, jss@PA.DEC.COM writes: << But if you look at it that way, then making contact is also an expression of the power relationship. It assumes that we have something to give them, and that it's something that they want. -- not really; they can always say "Not interested, please leave,", no? >I wouldn't want some alien looking at us and saying, "Gosh, they die so fast. Let's give them all eternal life." -- *I* certainly would! In fact, I'd do almost anything to get that. So would most people. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:13:44 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU << But if you look at it that way, then making contact is also an expression of the power relationship. It assumes that we have something to give them, and that it's something that they want.>> -- not really; they can always say "Not interested, please leave,", no?-- ~~~~ as if this response has ever worked in _any_ interaction where one party alone makes the decision to pursue said engagement >I wouldn't want some alien looking at us and saying, "Gosh, they die so fast. Let's give them all eternal life." -- *I* certainly would! In fact, I'd do almost anything to get that. So would most people. ~~~~~~ummm, so when the aliens get here, is there going to be a screening process on this "benie"? donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:18:22 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: donna simone Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >The Sparrow is going to be made into a movie starring Antonio Banderas as Emilio.> --......(I once asked one of the friends, a woman who wrote for Star Trek for some years, what Hollywood's problem was. She paused, thought, and said: "They're all such a bunch of chicken***ts.")-- Umm, would this be Melinda? I suspect most regular ole folks could tell us Hollywood is full of chickensh*ts without ever going there much less working there. donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:55:31 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/14/98 11:18:34 PM, you wrote: <<..(I once asked one of the friends, a woman who wrote for Star Trek for some years, what Hollywood's problem was. She paused, thought, and said: "They're all such a bunch of chicken***ts.")-->> One of my times in LA I *took a meeting* with a producer to discuss my screenplay. After a longish discussion of the script. she said: The only thing wrong with this business is that it has no guts and no integrity. Well, yeah -- Guess that's why I got all that option money and it never saw the light of day. HMMMMMM. lightly, phoebe ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 04:32:08 EST Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "S.M. Stirling" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 12/14/98 4:13:47 PM Mountain Standard Time, donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: >as if this response has ever worked in _any_ interaction where one party alone makes the decision to pursue said engagement >> -- well, it's at least as realistic as the "Prime Directive" stuff SF is full of. Myself, I think that if interstellar travel ever became as cheap and easy as this sort of SF assumes, that the regular commercial/cultural/religious/military incentives and patterns of intercultural contact would operate, as they have here since the Neolithic and before. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:05:48 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Meaning "any less technically advanced culture gets crushed in the path of the "progress" of the more advanced", right? Or am I just being too cyncial about humanity's track record with this one? -Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: S.M. Stirling [SMTP:JoatSimeon@AOL.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:32 AM > To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow, discussion begins > > In a message dated 12/14/98 4:13:47 PM Mountain Standard Time, > donnaneely@EARTHLINK.NET writes: > > >as if this response has ever worked in _any_ interaction where one party > alone makes the decision to pursue said engagement >> > > -- well, it's at least as realistic as the "Prime Directive" stuff SF is full of. > > Myself, I think that if interstellar travel ever became as cheap and easy as > this sort of SF assumes, that the regular > commercial/cultural/religious/military incentives and patterns of > intercultural contact would operate, as they have here since the Neolithic > and before. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:28:37 -0500 Reply-To: feldsipe@erols.com Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: suzanne feldman Organization: or lack thereof Subject: [*FSFFU*] BDG The Sparrow--The Movie To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Below is a forwarded note from Mary Russell--whoever sent the post with the casting suggestions for the movie--? I sent her a copy of that post and she loved it. This his is her response. Suze/Severna Suze: You can post this, if it seems appropriate. The director for The Sparrow initially wanted Susan Sarandon and Tommy Lee Jones for Anne and George Edwards, but the way the script is going, it'll be Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, and that's if we're lucky. I am in despair over what the studio has done to the story, and it gets worse every time they make Jason Rothenberg rewrite the script. The studio head began by telling Jason, "Well, he's gotta fuck 'er," with reference to Emilio and Sofia, and at that point the internal logic of my novel simply disappeared from the story. It is now The Thorn Birds Go To Mars, with elements of Casablanca and The English Patient mixed in, and a big Cowboys and Indians scene at the end. It's heartbreaking. Sofia is a Scientist, field unspecified, whose only role is to get Emilio to go to bed with her. Apart from that, she makes a scientific mistake and a man has to correct it. Jimmy Quinn turns into a sort of Lawrence of Rakhat with A Man Called Horse features. D.W. has been eliminated from the script-- they decided the movie-going audience isn't ready for an ugly, gay Jesuit from Texas, I guess, although I think that would have been a grand role for Morgan Freeman. Much of D.W.'s personality has been given to George, which is okay, but Anne, as we knew her, is now basically gone. She has maybe a dozen lines, and none of the major league Attitude that made her a good strong female role. Sarandon will wonder why anyone thought of her. They've given the Father General's role to the pope from Children of God, and they'd like Samuel Jackson to play Gelasius III, which is cool. John Candotti is gone, and of the Jesuits on Rakhat, they kept Alan Pace, not Marc Robichaux. Brother Edward is still there, in a not too badly muddled version. I have no idea why the character Emilio Sandoz is still a Jesuit, apart from the fresh new startling concept of having a priest (pause here to gasp with surprise) betray his vows. They've removed all the religious issues, apart from "celibacy is a dumb idea that nobody could possibly take seriously." So it's pure exploitation to include the Church as a story element, but that's to be expected. Actors love to play dress-up, and Banderas will look smashing in a black soutane. On the bright side, Universal Studios is on the verge of bankruptcy. They were hoping that Babe II and the Psycho remake would save them, but both films tanked, and the studio hasn't had a hit in three or four years. Heads have rolled, although not that of the man who wants to do The Sparrow, which was not among the projects that were recently cancelled. Now, in my view, the best case is as follows: in a flurry of publicity that sparks sales of the books, they roll the cameras for first day of principal photography, which is when the studio sends me the Big Check. The check clears the bank, and then Universal goes belly-up. The film option is sold to a small British studio, which dumps the bastardized script and rewrites it on the assumption that the audience will have triple-digit IQs. The special effects take a backseat to the characters and plot, and the movie is a sleeper that becomes a cult classic. Only a novelist could believe in this scenario, I suppose, but we can dream... Mary ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:59:04 -0800 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU*] The Thorn Birds Go To Mars To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Mary Russell writes: >It is now The Thorn Birds Go To Mars, with elements of >Casablanca and The English Patient mixed in, and a big Cowboys and >Indians scene at the end. It's heartbreaking. Yup, that's about what I expected. Now where's Salma Hayek? The fantasy about the way things could be sounds great. Get me two tickets for that movie. >The check clears the bank, and then Universal goes belly-up. The film option is sold to a small British studio, which dumps the >bastardized script and rewrites it on the assumption that the audience will have triple-digit IQs. The special effects take a >backseat to the characters and plot, and the movie is a sleeper that becomes a cult classic. Only a novelist could believe in this >scenario, >I suppose, but we can dream... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:31:18 -0500 Reply-To: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" Sender: "For discussion of feminist SF, fantastic & utopian literature" From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU*] BDG: The Sparrow To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 05:45 PM 12/9/98 -0800, Jessie Stickgold-Sarah wrote: >Don't get me wrong-I don't mean to downplay the devastating effects >that rape has on many, many people. On the contrary, that's exactly >why this portrayal bothered me. I felt we were supposed to feel like >it counted more, like somehow this was a really different thing than, >say, all the other rapes we've heard about. As I said, I eventually >understood what she was trying to use as the distinction; but it just >left me cold. This gets at my one of my big beefs with the book. Sandoz is persistently characterized as being "closer to God" than other people, as if there is something more noble than usual about his quest to understand and fulfill God's plan. Russell states in the back-of-the-book interview that "the risks [of religion] have to do with believing that God micromanages the world, and with seeing what may be simply coincidence as significant and indicative of divine providence. It's very easy then to go out on a limb spiritually, expect more from God than you have a right to expect, and set yourself up for bitter disappointment in His silence and lack of action." There seems to be an implied critique here, but from the text I get the sense that Russell feels that an aspiring mystic like Emilio really IS closer to God than more pragmatic folks like Candotti (who says at one point that he does not experience God directly, but rather through serving His children). Rather than being awed by and sympathetic to Sandoz, the end effect for me was the elevation of yet another self-absorbed sensitive guy to the level of "saintliness". In secular terms, sort of like a romantic unbalanced artist whose life is presumably interesting and worthy because he *feels* things so much more intensely than the rest of us. I just couldn't buy into it. Sandoz's specialness extends to his treatment by the Jesuits when he returns from the mission. They act as if what he has been through is simply unprecedented and never seem to think of approaches that are obvious to me, such as bringing in a counselor experienced with post-traumatic stress disorder. The closest thing to a treatment paradigm we see is Giuliani's brutal quasi-Freudian approach to making Emilio tell his story. In front of a hostile audience no less. And (this was the part that really got me) IT WORKS! Deafening in its absence was a parallel to the all-too-common rape of women. It would seem so easy to connect the dots. At one point Anne even draws an analogy between Emilio's growing faith in God to being in love with another person. Later, after his "betrayal", it would seem obvious to compare his rape to the much more common rape of women, whose faith in romance or the goodness of men has been shattered so often. Sofia's past history seems amazingly à propos. But Russell never makes the connection. Though it's obvious that the Jesuits operate missions around the world, in war-torn and variously deprived places (Emilio is posted to some of them), I felt a strange discontinuity in the novel between human belief in God and political awareness. For anyone who has read the second book or has a tolerance for spoilers, I recommend reading L. Timmel Duchamp's very perceptive essay about it which can be found at http://www.halcyon.com/ltimmel/cog.html. She really gets at what I am trying clumsily to express. All this being said, one thing I really liked about the book is that the characters are so vocal and generally intelligent that I find it easy to imagine debating issues with them and feel like I've been rambling on and on! (This message was originally a lot longer and less coherent.) It's an interesting book to discuss, particularly for an atheist like me. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm Listening to: Sunny Day Real Estate -- How It Feels to Be Something On "...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected; the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas