Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 23:27:31 +0000 From: Maryelizabeth Hart Organization: Mysterious Galaxy Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU What's up with discussing this? I know Monday was a holiday for many people, but... How did people feel about TSNOTD as compared to other Willis prose, especially DOOMSDAY BOOK? How did your level of familiarity with the time and place described in TSNOTD affect your enjoyment of the book? Maryelizabeth - -- *********************************************************************** Mysterious Galaxy Local Phone: 858.268.4747 3904 Convoy Street, #107 Fax: 858.268.4775 San Diego, CA 92111 Long Distance/Orders: 1.800.811.4747 http://www.mystgalaxy.com Email: mgbooks@ax.com *********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:30:13 0100 From: Petra Mayerhofer Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I don't know whether there is some internet breakdown or not. So far I have not received any message on _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ (TSNotD) from the list. So perhaps this is the starting message for this discussion, if not please be patient with me. I enjoyed TSNotD but was not thrilled. I was more irritated than amused by the first chapters (for that one should know that I am no fan of screwball comedy). It got better after Ned arrived in 1888 and was on the river. Before I read the book I had never heard of _Three men on a boat_ and probably I missed half of the jokes in the first half of the book. But I was an avid Dorothy Sayers fan for a time so the references in the second half had more meaning for me. However, I don't think that is the reason I liked the second half better. Many characters appeared like caricatures to me, but perhaps that's simply a characteristic of such a comedy? I think of Lady Schrappnel (can anybody believe that somebody could be so overpowering?), Prof. Peddick (he's an over-used cliché IMO), the mother of the girl (name? help, I don't have the book here). Today I had once more a bit of free time (compared to the last weeks) and I used it to look for online references on the novel. Some reviewers praise the book for historical accuracy, others censure it for the lack of it. To me it appeared historical accurate but I have only a rough knowledge of the period (based on English literature of the 19th century). Any historians out there who can comment? What did list members think of the time travel concept? It seemed to be consistent but I have not really concentrated to keep abreast of the details. Last but not least, is it feminist? IMO it is not (this is not meant as censure but as a category, it is not anti-feminist either). What could be seen as feminist? There is the beautiful, conceited girl (name?), uneducated in all important matters, who gains self- knowledge. Not particularly original, I think, and proving a point made a long time ago (and not particularly relevant for present times IMO). There is Verity (that name I remember!), a beautiful, determined women, shown in a professional role. There are 1-2 instances in which the usual perception was overthrown because a woman was behind the male-perceived profession (very minor characters in the context of the novel). Can somebody add to this? Do you want to add Lady Schrappnel? What could be seen as less feminist? Mr. Dunworthy, Finch, Galsworthy, Ned, .... As they are given much more time than most of the female characters I think it leaves the impression of man as the norm in the professional life of future Oxford. The warden, ugly, and with an ugly personality (and Galsworthy could only be in love with her because of time-lag!). That Lady Schrapnell (IMO) and the mother of the girl are such caricatures. No, I don't think that a feminist novel is simply one in which there are more female than male characters, and in which there are only (or at least one) strong women characters. But it is a starting-point for an evaluation, not the end of the analysis. To go beyond simply counting males/females: I think how beauty/ugliness of women is presented in the novel is _not_ feminist. The nominator of TSNotD originally wrote: 'I'm also hoping to see some discussion of whether we can consider this book feminist, though it may be that this selection is too mainstream for the list's tastes.' I hope s/he is out there on the list and can comment. What do other list members think? At last, I come to the online references. TSNotD is certainly popular. There are a lot of reviews out there on the net. However, many reviews just give an outline of the plot and a concluding sentence (sometimes a paragraph) to say whether the book is in the reviewer's opinion good or not. In the following I tried to list the more reflective, meaningful reviews first. Science Fiction Weekly Review by John Clute ('Excessive Candour') (positive): http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue59/excess.html He says: 'The pretense of collegiate sloth that generates so much of the humor of Three Men is precisely that: a pretense. Jerome and his cohort were desperately hardworking hacks; the sloth of the three men in their boat is a dream. And when she [Connie Willis] sets her time-travellers from 2058 in that slothful, dreamlike, resented but longed-for 1888, Connie Willis asks a great deal of us. She asks us to dream along with her. The miracle is, we do. Time travel, after all, is a body English of nostalgia; [...] Willis's style, in truth, does not much resemble Jerome's, for he is a deceptively concise writer, and much of the pleasure of Three Men in a Boat lies in discovering how seeming digressions [...] whip back into the main driveshaft of story. To Say Nothing of the Dog much more closely resembles, in its mise-en-scene and characters and unsugary sweetness of nostalgia, a P.G. Wodehouse tale with the stays loosed.' SF Site review by Steven Silver (rather negative): http://sfsite.com/02b/dog27.htm He says: '[...] the main characters are, ostensibly, historians. However, none of the characters, [...] or Ned Henry and Verity Kindle from To Say Nothing of the Dog think like historians. Nor do they seem to know anything about history beyond what they learn after they leap into the past. The historical arguments Willis portrays in To Say Nothing of the Dog, most notably Peddick's debate with Overforce over whether history is the result of grand forces or individuals, is extremely watered down and none of Willis' twenty- first century historians involve themselves in the debate or even bring any advanced arguments to the topic when listening to the nineteenth-century Oxford dons argue. [...] I have read several stories by Connie Willis which I have enjoyed. However, these have all been short stories or novellas. At longer lengths, based on the three Willis novels I've read, I'm afraid I subscribe to the minority opinion that her work is vastly overrated.' I think it is of interest in this context that Steven Silver is one of the founders and judges for the Sidewise Award for Alternate History ( http://www.skatecity.com/ah/sidewise/ ). Review by Richard Horton (mixed): http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton/tosay.htm He says: 'Willis seems to be saying, if this is a screwball comedy, darn it, I can have implausible plot points, and outrageous coincidences, and my tone can be as goofy as I want. But a funny thing (so to speak) happened on the way to Coventry, and this novel turns out to have a serious and moving center to it after all, albeit in the context of a generally very funny book. What's more, Willis' point derives nicely from her story's outrageous coincidences, almost too overtly so, as if the book points at its faults and says "I meant it that way". Which brings me to my misgivings about a novel that I ended up liking quite a bit. The whole machinery of the plot is set in motion by some generally unbelievable actions. [describes how Ned ends up in 1888] All these machinations strain credibility, really even beyond the rather loose requirements of a screwball comedy. Moreover, the whole plot centers about the tendency of the structure of Time to resist alteration, which necessarily requires the reader to think about the mechanics of Willis' time travel setup. Unfortunately, in my opinion this setup doesn't really stand up well to being thought about too carefully. At least for the first few chapters, I was simultaneously entertained by the comic goings on, which are prime Connie Willis in her madcap mode, and irritated by the blatant plot manipulation. However, after a bit I calmed down and accepted the premise as given, and I quite enjoyed the story.' SF Site review by Margo MacDonald (shorter, positive): http://sfsite.com/04a/dog30.htm She says: 'Interwoven with humour, wit and unfailing romanticism, this book is a pure pleasure which leaves you feeling as relaxed and satisfied as a picnic on a green lawn by a rolling river on a warm summer's day... hmmm... and maybe just a touch time-lagged.' SF Site Review by Thomas Myer (very positive): http://sfsite.com/01a/2say48.htm He says:'Not only is Willis's title derived from Jerome's work, but her novel also concerns the humorous meanderings of three men in a boat on the Thames. Ned Henry (the time-traveling protagonist) both refers to and reenacts incidents from Jerome's novel. On a thematic level, the two novels are also very similar -- a character or group of characters in search of some leisure time find everything but. [...] The story, though heavily dependent on Jerome K. Jerome's novel, is brilliantly executed. Only Connie Willis could pull off such a derivative work and make it hum. Her use of humor is spot on. The scenes in which Ned Henry suffers from time-lag are side-splitting; you can't help but laugh at someone else's afflictions. This novel is a primary shining example of what SF ought to be: spry, enjoyable, meaningful, and with tongue planted firmly in cheek.' Mervius's Book Reviews (positive): http://www.mervius.com/books/To%20Say%20Nothing%20of%20the%20Dog.htm S/he says: 'What I find most marvelous about this book is its balance of mystery, time travel, and romantic setting. [...] Due to the setting, there is a sort of lazy efficientness to the way the story unfolds. It's all very tight, and with so many details (i.e. clues) along the way, it has to be. I found a few times, as in the first chapter, that the author seemed to be including too many details in boring things (e.g. looking through air raid rubble). I'm not convinced that that's not the case, but the reader does come to understand that there are clues everywhere, and that you can't possibly tie 'em all together until the author feels like revealing her secrets. To Say Nothing of the Dog is one of those novels that you'd just love to crawl inside. At the same time, the setting always serves the story -- it's not just there as background. And it lends itself to plenty of humor, some of it downright laugh-out-loud silly (I can't help but think of a particular seance scene as I write this). I almost said "the pivotal seance scene." But that's not right, because the story tends to pivot and bolt in unexpected (but necessary) directions all the time.' Linköping Science Fiction Archive - Review by Mariann T. Woodward (very positive) http://sf.www.lysator.liu.se/sf_archive/sf-texts/books/W/Willis,Connie.mbox #bgc4soxg6ps.fsf@tinbergen.media.mit.edu She says: 'The time travel plot in To Say Nothing of the Dog is flawless. The incongruity causes numerous slippages in the time continuum, and even the slightest misstep causes considerable harm for the future. [...] I found myself trying to figure out the mystery along with Ned and Verity, stumbling as they did when ideas collapsed and breathing a sigh of relief when a step in the right direction was taken. The overall results, regardless of the situation, were hilarious, to say the least. Willis has a sharp eye for detail for Victorian society and customs; I learned much about the upper class in this book, and it never once felt like a history lesson. As Ned learned how to deal with his situation, I learned a little bit, too. It also helped that Willis has a terribly wicked sense of humor. Subtle and cutting, the jabs at all of those quirky customs within Victorian society sparked frequent giggles from me.' Review by Jim Mann (New England SF Ass.) (very positive): http://www.nesfa.org/reviews/saynothi.shtml He says: 'this is a wonderful time travel story of the "it's really, really hard to change the past" school of time travel stories (of which Fritz Leiber wrote several great stories). In fact, Willis produces one of the most wonderfully complex and convoluted examples of the universe writing itself that I've ever seen.' Review by Christina Schulman (positive): http://www.pitt.edu/~schulman/SF/nothing-of-the-dog.html She says: 'Willis repeatedly reminds the reader that history is a chaotic system, which appears to mean that it behaves according to the requirements of the plot. That plot is perhaps a bit overly convoluted, but it is tightly woven, and the writing is amusing throughout.' On the lighter sight, reed the 'Excerpts from WILLIS WATCH - A report of my historical observations of the career of Constance Elaine Trimmer Willis from 1981 to 2000 (Old Style). Time Drop Project Balliol 22846, funded by a grant from the Williamson Institute for Advanced Literary Studies' at http://www.nh.ultranet.com/~jimkelly/pages/willis1.htm written by James Patrick Kelly Interviews (actually chats) with Connie Willis: Chat transcript of 'Connie Willis answers your questions'. In Science Fiction Weekly #17 (1996) at http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue17/interview.html Transcript of moderated chat with Connie Willis on 30 August, 1997 hosted by SCIFI.COM at http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/worldcon97/ConnieWillis.html Transcript of chat on December 4, 1997 at Omni Magazine at http://www.omnimag.com/archives/chats/bios/willis.html Transcript of moderated chat with Connie Willis on 28 April, 1998 hosted by SCIFI.COM at Transcript of moderated chat with Connie Willis on 23 March, 1999 hosted by SCIFI.COM at Paul Kincaid: Connie Willis - A One-sided Dialogue (An imaginative interview) at http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~acb/intuition/pr1/cw.htm Connie Willis Fan page by Elisabeth (?) at http://geocities.com/Wellesley/5595/willis/willis.html Petra *** Petra Mayerhofer **** mayerhofer@usf.uni-kassel.de *** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:49:03 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Thanks to Petra for all the links. I laughed out loud many many times reading this novel. Found it charming. I am a fan of screw-ball comedy, so perhaps am willing to overlook the fact that the book often seemed two-dimensional (to say nothing of time travel)... Screw-ball comedy doesn't need to have a memory; it can say one funny thing one moment and a contrary funny thing the next. Uses primary colors, too. Characters, for instance, tend to be caricatures, as Petra notes. If you think of the great screw-ball comedies out of the 30's in Hollywood, the characters are shallow. What makes them *work* are the strong personalities of the actors who played them -- Carol Lombard, Roz Russell, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn... I was intrigued by the mechanics of the time-travel but never did think it quite worked, or maybe it's just that it seemed confusing. (Re-reading might correct this.) I did like the concept there at its heart: time as chaos, as a living system. It amused me that the future scholars seemed just as doofus as the 19th century ones. That ties in the time as continuum theme. The more things change the more they stay the same, so to speak. I do not, however, see this as a feminist novel. Just a fun one. best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 13:48:14 -0700 From: "Candioglos, Sandy" Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I had read Doomsday Book first, so TSNOTD was familiar in setting and tone, which made it comfortable. Doomsday seemed a lot more thoughtful (it was more serious, but I think I remember laughing a few times even so), and I was fascinated by the premises of her future Oxford, which are much more completely laid out in Doomsday than they are in TSNOTD. I LOVE screwball comedies, which may correlate to the fact that the humor tickled me; the book had me laughing out loud in several places. I'm not at all familiar with Victorian England in a historical sense; I was totally willing to take Willis' word for it (without necessarily accepting her word as "truth"), so any incongruities there might have been didn't detract from my enjoyment at all. -Sandy ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 17:23:32 -0800 From: Sharon Anderson Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU <> Okay, Mary Elizabeth, I'll start. I like Connie Willis. I mean, I -really- like Connie Willis. I read "Firewatch" when it first came out, and have jumped on everything of hers since then. When I found out the book opened about the bombing of Coventry, I was delighted, I expected more Firewatch. Boy, was I mistaken. I found the switches back and forth in time confusing. I found the language confusing. I found the references to just about everything confusing. I almost gave up. I decided to invoke the 50-page rule. It took about 48 pages for me to get so hooked into the characters that I decided to struggle along and ignore whatever it was that I couldn't understand. And then, eventually, it all made sense. I didn't have near this much difficulty with The Doomsday Book. But then, I'm pretty well-read on Europe and especially England between William the Conqueror and Elizabeth I. After Elizabeth, it gets fuzzy. I guess it's fuzzier than I thought about Victorian England. By the end of the book, I was enjoying it. But I think it's probably her most difficult. And I wouldn't recommend it as a first book for somebody who wants to read Willis. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 19:24:39 -0700 From: Anitra Freeman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Maryelizabeth Hart wrote: > How did people feel about TSNOTD as compared to other Willis prose, > especially DOOMSDAY BOOK? Like Sharon Anderson, I am a Connie Willis fan. I haven't read everything by her, but I've read a great deal. She writes in a wide range, from serious to madcap. This one was on the madcap end. I think that you do have to be a fan of screwball comedy to enjoy this book; like Phoebe and Sandy, I am, and I loved it. As in some of her short stories, Connie Willis treats chaos theory and quantum dynamics as a delightful new toy invented for writers, which I tend to think is the healthiest attitude toward them. As for its relation to DOOMSDAY BOOK: I have several times, while writing something solemn and heartfelt, had to choke back or cut out a totally inappropriate zany comment that popped in. Sometimes I've gone off and written the zany take on the same subject, by itself. TSNotD struck me as Willis revisiting DB and releasing her zaniness in the same venue that she had already treated solemnly. > How did your level of familiarity with the time and place described in > TSNOTD affect your enjoyment of the book? I had not read Three Men In a Boat, but I seem to have read just the right amount of Victoriana to enjoy TSNotD: enough that I felt at home, and not enough to be jarred by any discrepancies. Thank you to Petra for all the links. I don't regard the book as "feminist", myself, except in the very general sense that a good book by a woman writer may aid feminism. In a very roundabout way I got onto this list because a man on another list wailed "why are there no great female fantasy authors?" He got piled on. :) So many authors and titles were recommended that I collected them into a webpage that I had to split into three parts. One of the ones most frequently and passionately cited was Connie Willis. Not all of the authors and books recommended were feminist, but the question of whether women can write great, or even good, novels does have feminist overtones. Other possibly interesting questions: Male writers are often accused by feminists of writing stereotyped, wooden or decidedly negative female characters. Female writers are often accused in return of writing stereotyped, wooden or outright negative male characters. Personally, I don't believe that every book has to appeal to everyone, and if an author speaks exclusively to the left-handed midget transgendered lepers of lower Albania it isn't fair to criticize her for not including a well-characterized black male lawyer from Cleveland Ohio. But it is fun to examine who does the best job of presenting valid characters from both sexes: men who "feel" like someone you might know, women who "feel" like someone you might know. How do you think Connie Willis does at that? My own opinion is that the characters in TSNotD are meant to be stock, comic characters, so it's not a very good example of Willis's abilities at characterization, overall. Verity and Ned have their moments, however. I think that Verity has more of them: I could imagine Verity surviving on her own in my own world, and I can't imaging Ned surviving on his own in any world. But I found it possible to ride along on Ned's point-of-view without any jarring moments of "nobody would do *that*!" Write On! / Anitra L. Freeman / "Never doubt that a small group of imperfect people can improve the world--indeed they are the only ones who ever have." Not Margaret Mead ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:46:35 EDT From: Beth Brown Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I don't know squat about Victorian England, at least not the details, but I found her description of the character and flavor of life at the home of Princess Arjumand very engaging. One thing about Connie Willis' writing which is unusual is her attention to mundane responsibility. Right after I finished TSNOTD I read Light Raid which she co-authored. In LR the heroine is responsible for an infant and a small child, with requisite details like diapers. In TSNOTD Cyril and Princess Arjumand take the place of children in terms of providing annoying, entertaining and down-to-earth details that make situations more believable. These are the kind of responsibilities--caring for children and animals--which frequently are consigned to female characters in literature if they are present at all. Willis spreads out domestic duties with an even hand. (Except of course for the Victorian wealthy, who had their servants) Time lag is a brilliant concept. It explains so many things... Beth ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:24:18 EDT From: Phoebe Wray Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 7/8/99 2:49:33 AM, Beth wrote: <> Oh yes, I have to second! I loved the bit about the cats. Willis must have some... best phoebe Phoebe Wray zozie@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:23:55 EDT From: Kathleen Friello Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: To Say Nothing... To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I've been away from my library for about a month, and didn't get a chance to reread this, so I'm going on general memory-- I loved this book: I thought it was a delight to read, from the design of the chapter headings to the last jot & tittle of the plot clicking into place. What I remember most clearly was Willis's wonderfully circuitous style, especially in her characters' constantly interrupted and derailed conversations and trains of thought (games with the reader: I'm following the author's lead, but want to get in and tap characters on the shoulder myself-- and set a mental bookmark to see if the disrupted idea will ever reassemble itself, and feel gratified when it does; a tedious technique in some hands, but Willis keeps things rolling along and pulls it off). And the concept of time-lag; and the McGuffin (the hideous Bishop's bird-something stump). And the idea of the reconstructed cathedral, like the Japanese and Chinese renewed temples, but here as a pure expression of nostalgia and art. And the whole enterprise driven by a bloody-minded eccentric with a passion for detail, like the author. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:31:37 -0400 From: Claudia Mastroianni Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Three Men in a Boat To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I haven't had the chance to read Jerome's book, but I did find it at my local university library. The publication dates of the editions they had, though, lead me to believe it may be a bit hard to find these days. So, for the curious, here's a URL for the Project Gutenberg online version of Jerome K. Jerome's book: ftp://sailor.gutenberg.org/pub/gutenberg/etext95/3boat10.txt As for To Say Nothing of the Dog... I'm afraid I haven't reread it in preparation for the discussion, and after some of the less positive comments, I feel I should at least skim it again before saying too much. I will agree that it requires a certain taste in comedy to enjoy the humor. But as I believe I said in the nominations discussion, I think the time travel was wonderfully done. This is a purely plot-level appreciation... I find "so we changed history and only I remember how it used to be" a very weak way of telling a story, and the idea that the flow of history protects itself from wholesale changes appeals to me greatly. I don't suppose this book is particularly feminist, but I think I had better revisit the book before I say more there. Claudia -- "I have heard it spoken of as a place frequented by females of unnatural propensity, seeking companionship in disgraceful conduct." "I have heard it spoken of as an agreeable little establishment where single women may enjoy one another's company in relaxed and convivial surroundings. Still, we're clearly thinking of the same place." --Caudwell ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:57:20 -0500 From: Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > I didn't have near this much difficulty with The Doomsday Book. But then, >I'm pretty well-read on Europe and especially England between William the >Conqueror and Elizabeth I. After Elizabeth, it gets fuzzy. I guess it's >fuzzier than I thought about Victorian England. > By the end of the book, I was enjoying it. But I think it's probably her >most difficult. And I wouldn't recommend it as a first book for somebody who >wants to read Willis. Personally, I would tell anyone to read Bellwether first. I couldn't get into TSNOTD at all, but Bellwether made me laugh out loud. I've recommended it to my friends. Sheryl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:26:52 -0500 From: Todd Mason Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TO SAY NOTHING OF THE DOG wins the Locus Award... To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU for the year's best sf novel, DARKECHO the Newsletter (darkecho@aol.com) informs us. I'm surprised at how many commenters so far have apparently never read Jerome K. Jerome, but, then, I've never read the work of his that triggered Willis's thinking... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:23:46 -0400 From: Kirsten Hoyte Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: To Say Nothing... To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Unovissf@AOL.COM writes: >I've been away from my library for about a month, and didn't get a chance >to reread this, so I'm going on general memory-- > >I loved this book: I thought it was a delight to read, from the design of >the chapter headings to the last jot & tittle of the plot clicking into place. I also adored this book. In fact, I read it several times and laughed, giggled and snorted each time. This is probably not a good thing --but I completely related to the idea of time lag and exhaustion-induced stupidity, and was delighted to witness the characters suffering from it. I was right there with Ned as he struggled to make sense while hearing only every other word and then kept on making more of a mess and a muddle of things the more he tried to fix them. I loved Cyril and Princess Juju as well as the love-sick couple (Terence and Tossie). And Finch "so difficult to get soot out of chintz" was a riot. Generally I am not interested in any kind of romances particularly hetero ones, but I even found Ned and Verity bearable. I know nothing about Victorian history so I was willing to accept Willis' version. I had read and enjoyed the Doomsday book before, but I liked this one even better. My one objection might be that I guessed who Mr. C was quite a while before everyone found out, but that's okay too; I just felt superior. I don't know. I would never call myself a particular fan of screwball comedies or mysteries either, but this one really struck me. I have always liked time travel though. However, I probably would never have called it a particularly feminist book or anything. Kirsten ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:55:56 -0700 From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Three Men in a Boat To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I was able to get this book earlier this year. I must admit that I started the Willis book but then took a hiatus to read the Jerome. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying _To Say Nothing of the Dog_, but I got more enjoyment with it after I had the Jerome under my belt. The added fun of seeing the allusions was worth the time away for me. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Joan Gant in Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 19:58:42 -0700 From: Cynthia Gonsalves Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 03:57 PM 7/8/99 -0500, Sheryl wrote: >Personally, I would tell anyone to read Bellwether first. I couldn't get >into TSNOTD at all, but Bellwether made me laugh out loud. I've recommended >it to my friends. Oh, yes, Bellwether is absolutely priceless! I think it's a great introduction to Willis. Each time I read it, I appreciate how clearly she described the madness of our consumer culture. Cynthia -- "I had to be a bitch, they wouldn't let me be a Jesuit." -Joan Gant in Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas, and Electric Sharks Bite!!! http://members.home.net/cynthia1960/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 08:01:00 -0400 From: Lori B Pfahler Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I have to admit I am struggling through this one. I haven't found it funny or interesting at all. I was totally lost for the first 50 pages. I felt like I was an outsider to the story - not having all the pieces to understand it. If it were not for the book group, I would have given up on it already. I guess its because I am not well versed in the any of the literature/history that is woven in. Perhaps this wasn't the right book for me to start with? I have not read any of her other books. Anyone else having similar trouble with the story? Looking longingly at my _To Be Read_ stack ... Lori B. Pfahler Lori_B_Pfahler@rohmhaas.com Statistics Support Group Rohm and Haas Company Spring House Research Labs "These are my opinions and not those of the Rohm and Haas Company" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:40:38 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Can anyone confirm or deny that Ned Henry is also the name of Nancy Drew's boyfriend? Call me crazy, but I swear it's true! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 21:53:26 EDT From: Kathleen Friello Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I remember a Ned Nickerson... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 09:01:43 -0500 From: Annalise Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > Can anyone confirm or deny that Ned Henry is also the name of Nancy > Drew's boyfriend? Call me crazy, but I swear it's true! > > Susan Nancy Drew's boyfriend was named Ned Nickerson, not Ned Henry. Edie -- ----- annalise@ripco.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:05:27 -0700 From: SMCharnas Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Now that I've had a while to think about this book, I see -- maybe -- why I found myself skimming the last third of it and unsatisfied at the end. I read it in an evening and the next morning, because I knew if I let a little time go by I would not bother coming back to finish. First, it's set up as farce, which generally means cardboard characters being maneuvered in and out of increasingly ridiculous and futile situations. As a devotee of character as the most interesting element of fiction, I get tired of this pretty soon. Always excepting, of course, really brilliant stage- farce done magnificently, like the play NOISES OFF, for example (*not* the wretched film version but the NY production, at which I laughed so hard that I was in serious danger of throwing up on the head of the person sitting -- and laughing -- in front of me). On paper, the shorter and punchier farce- dialog and scenes are, the better (see the very dated and by now entirely politically incorrect novels of Thorne Smith for examples of a master of farce at work). So, not surprisingly, I think Willis has a *much* better feeling for the pace of humor in short fiction than in novel length, as indeed almost every- body has. The dying actor had it right: "Dying is easy; *comedy* is hard." I just heard farce defined on the radio as "the worst day of your life," which captures exactly the one-damned-thing-after-another pell-mell of farce, ie rapidly paced cumulative catastrophe; maybe setting the story in slow-paced Victorian Oxford made the job impossible. Second, while all the historical what-iffing was fascinating -- I didn't know Napoleon had piles; Richelieu, yes, but Napoleon? -- the revelation that the plot was all correction upon correction brought up the Grand Design vs. Free Will problem for me. Since I see the future(s) as produced as we go by countless intricately intertwined decisions made by everybody *winging it* as we go, I don't find the comfort that the author's characters seem to in the idea of a self-correcting mechanism (implying, of course, an artisan-Creator). Their universe runs like clockwork and requires people only as cogs operating per expectation in the right place at the right time, which seems to mean, you act, and I-God-mechanism will cancel/correct what you've done and make you do it over til you get it right. Makes the whole thing a pretty point- less exercise and "Free Will" a bad joke; so I guess I have an objection on -- spiritual? philosophical? -- grounds. To say nothing of the dog, which was much to anthropomorphized for me. The cat, now; that struck closer to reality for me. The best joke in the book was the recurring one of telling time by Roman numerals -- "half past X." It was used over and over, but it amused and beguiled each time. I read THE DOOMSDAY BOOK years ago and found it intensely moving, by the way; they make a very interesting pair, one an anguished but deeply powerful tragedy, the other (IMO) a long-winded and unsuccessful comedy on similar themes. Suzy Charnas ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:15:05 EDT From: Tanya Bouwman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 8 Jul 1999 to 9 Jul 1999 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU In a message dated 7/10/99 1:07:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU writes: > Can anyone confirm or deny that Ned Henry is also the name of Nancy > Drew's boyfriend? Call me crazy, but I swear it's true! > > Susan >> I remember a Ned Nickerson... I just went upstairs to check my old Nancy Drew collection and Kathleen is right it's Ned Nickerson. Tanya ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:54:12 +1200 From: Ianthe Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Ned Henry To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >> Can anyone confirm or deny that Ned Henry is also the name of Nancy >> Drew's boyfriend? Call me crazy, but I swear it's true! >> >> Susan >>> I remember a Ned Nickerson... Oh well, Ned Henry's close enough, and wasn't the idea in Ned Henry's name that it sounded reasonably Victorian? I don't think Nancy Drew's the type of Mystery that Willis was modelling on... although there were the old ones where Nancy drove a roadster and there were words longer than two syllables. *grins* ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:04:25 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] FEMINISTSF-LIT Digest - 8 Jul 1999 to 9 Jul 1999 To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Tanya Bouwman wrote: > > In a message dated 7/10/99 1:07:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU writes: > > > Can anyone confirm or deny that Ned Henry is also the name of Nancy > > Drew's boyfriend? Call me crazy, but I swear it's true! > > > > Susan > > > > >> > >> I remember a Ned Nickerson... > >> > > I just went upstairs to check my old Nancy Drew collection and Kathleen is > right it's Ned Nickerson. > > Tanya Ned Nickerson it is. I guess I'll be more careful next time I swear!! Thanks to all who checked and/or have better memories than I. :) Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:48:37 -0500 From: Big Yellow Woman Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU SMCharnas wrote: > the revelation that the > plot was all correction upon correction brought up the Grand Design vs. Free > Will problem for me. Since I see the future(s) as produced as we go by > countless intricately intertwined decisions made by everybody *winging it* as > we go, I don't find the comfort that the author's characters seem to in the > idea of a self-correcting mechanism (implying, of course, an > artisan-Creator). Their universe runs like clockwork and requires people > only as cogs operating > per expectation in the right place at the right time, which seems to mean, > you act, and I-God-mechanism will cancel/correct what you've done and make > you do it over til you get it right. Makes the whole thing a pretty point- > less exercise and "Free Will" a bad joke; so I guess I have an objection > on -- spiritual? philosophical? -- grounds. I finally finished the book this afternoon and have to agree with what Suzy said. The handling of the free will question disappointed me too. In the end, there is some new understanding of the use of time travel to bring nonessential objects forward and that this introduces some possibility for the past to influence the future in new ways, if not the other way around, but it seems like there is never much thought given to choice and responsibility since it all gets fixed up sooner or later. I don't find that comforting. If they are right that all of the "corrections" that take place have to do with an incongruity 600+ years in the future, all the more reason to abdicate responsibility and believe that no matter what you do, "God" or "the continuum" will make it work out according to plan. This reminds me of a religious group in Nancy Kress' _Brainrose_. It is a pseudo-ecological religion that has so much faith in the power of the planet to heal itself that its believers think nothing of harming the environment and make wasting resources a way of life. Because it will all work out no matter what we do. I hate that. And I don't believe it. I found the last several chapters boring and kept wondering why I wasn't just skimming it. The unravelling of the mystery brought no surprises and seemed to drag on since I had figured out most of what had Ned so confused. Even before that, the Baine thing seemed so obvious it wasn't funny anymore, especially by the time of Tossie's farewell letter. On the whole, the speculation and the continuum stuff got really repetitive for me. The only thing that really pleased me about the ending was that cats, an extinct species, were going to be saved through this new loophole they discover in time travel. And the idea of getting the contents of the Library at Alexandria was a pretty cool idea--although it doesn't seem consistent with the inherent safeguards of the continuum that such things, "inessential" to the past, could be brought into the future where they could have a huge impact. I read Doomsday Book several years ago and don't remember it that well, though I remember being fascinated with the distinctions between the different kinds of plague. While I admire Willis' writing skill and grasp of history, I don't feel any real involvement with her characters. For me, her books don't really exploit the things that I like the most about science fiction--in fact they hardly seem like science fiction at all. Time travel is only a device the author uses to be able to talk about history from a future perspective. Octavia Butler's _Kindred_ is another example of this. That's legitimate, but it seems like the potential interest of the contrast of these worlds is not taken advantage of, which is one reason I don't see Willis' work as feminist. Marlene Barr says that "feminist fabulation" presents a radically discontinuous world that confronts the known in some cognitive way. _Kindred_ does that somewhat, and I think it perfectly fair to use discontinuous historical worlds as the basis for your Sci-Fi world building, but the lack of confrontation in Willis book left me a bit bored and disappointed. And now *I'm* getting repetitive! Susan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:02:25 -0700 From: SMCharnas Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNotD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU At 8:48 PM 7/12/99, Big Yellow Woman wrote: >The only thing that really pleased me about the ending was that cats, an >extinct species, were going to be saved through this new loophole they >discover in time travel. And the idea of getting the contents of the >Library at Alexandria was a pretty cool idea--although it doesn't seem >consistent with the inherent safeguards of the continuum that such >things, "inessential" to the past, could be brought into the future >where they could have a huge impact. What you said. And who said the Library at Alexandria was inessential to the past? I liked the cats-idea too; I think everybody did. One must wonder, though, whether there is any bird population left alive in the future world, and if so, is anyone considering the impact of reintroducing cats? This is not a light concern, by the way, and causes a *lot* of dis- cussion in the Manchester Guardian's Nature columns every nest-building season (well, they would feel it more on an island, I guess). Talk about farcically unbelievable irresponsibility with a tragic edge! These (future) characters are so busy being bumbly "just folks" and making good-hearted mistakes that they become completely unrealistic to me (though in farce, that should not be an intrusive problem, to be fair). >I read Doomsday Book several years ago and don't remember it that well, >I don't see Willis' work as feminist. I believe that Connie herself (who's been heard to say that there is a liberal academic conspiracy to destroy civilization through "political correctness") has said in my hearing that she's no feminist (unless I badly misunderstood her, and there is always that possibility). At her best, though, she's a good humorist with pleasingly quirky vision. Nor is conservatism without fine values. I found DOOMSDAY to relentlessly gloomy in its insistence that Nothing Could Be Done, but the idea of the church bells tolling its prescribed number of rings for each dead person according to their age and sex (as I recall it) brought tears to my eyes -- I was thinking of our century of dead bodies dumped into mass graves without the blink of an eye . . . that was worth the whole book, for me, that moment of seeing into a time where (if Willis has it right, and why should she not?) each death signified and deserved to be marked for all to hear, right down to the end. Suzy Charnas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:45:18 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU If as someone said this isn't the best introduction to Connie Ellis's work, I'm sorry, because I won't be reading any more. I agree with many of the reviews that it took a while to get into the book, and once I did I enjoyed it more, but not enough to subject myself to this style again. I'm sure Ellis would know what I mean. She had Ned give a very good impression of Victorian drawing rooms, so full of stuff that you can't move without tripping over something or bumping your shin. Much of the stuff was interesting, there was just too much of it. Well, that was the style of the book in a nutshell. I felt suffocated by it all. I even stopped reading the cute little chapter headings hoping that would help, but there was still just too much of everything. I liked the view of time travel being taken over by the history department because there wasn't enough profit in it to make it a worth while scientific venture. I liked the idea of fate or time working things out as it should, the intermixture of chaos and purpose. I did get a kick out of the time lag situations. I too figured out long before the end who Mr. C. was, but I confess, for a long time I hoped he was Cyril. That would have been a perfect turn of events. I laughed at many of the situations. I caught a few, not nearly enough, of the references. I enjoyed the description of Victorian England. I didn't understand why the one time traveler wanted to stay and be a butler. Yes, he did a fine job but why would anyone have chosen such a masochistic profession? I liked almost every little thing about the book, I just didn't like them all rammed in there together. Was it feminist? No, not that I could see. As has been said, it wasn't anti-feminist, but it did little to promote the equality of women. Yes there were wise as well as silly female characters, wise and silly male characters, but no attempt to strengthen the ideas of equality either politically or philosophically. This wasn't a statement book, it was just a farce, and I prefer farces to be much shorter than 493 pages. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 01:49:55 -0700 From: Joyce Jones Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Willis, not Ellis. It must be time lag. I went to see The Mummy and got stuck 3000 years ago. Joyce ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:44:25 -0700 From: Robert Sessions Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG To Say Nothing of the Dog To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU One of the interesting functions of science stories can be watching the characters (as scientists) figure out what is going on. Imagine these characters in a blacked out (perhaps Victorian) room stumbling about trying to piece together what is there by groping in the dark. The time travelers (when not too time lagged) were stumbling about, trying to figure the nature of the phenomenon or event that was making their drops so inaccurate. This process can resemble what real people do when discovering phenomena in their own lives. In mysteries the usual crime questions get asked, in romances "how does who ends up with whom" gets answered. TSNOTD is sort of a mystery and a sort of a romance. In this story the "stumbling about" part has so much slapstick that the main focus is a farce story. This book took several starts for me to get to reading it. A much smoother mystery was in competition (Lindsey Davis' _Three hands in the fountain_), and won my reading time away from TSNOTD. I agree with Joyce's comments about liking the elements but not the way they are combined. The free will parts that SMCharnas disliked were not so troublesome to me, because the characters _felt_ they had free will, even though some vast System was really operating through them. The operating of that System was the real scientific phenomenon that the time traveling staff needed to describe. What I liked about the story, and what it has in common with many good stories, lay in how the small details the characters experience can add up to a picture of the phenomena the characters need to understand. I agree with the assessment about the uncertain feminist qualities of the story, but feel good about the numerical aspect of gender balance. I did like being able to tell the difference between characters even when the observer was acting time-lagged. Bob o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o Robert Sessions resessio@facstaff.wisc.edu Steenbock Memorial Library (608)263-2385 voice 550 Babcock Drive (608)263-3221 fax University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706 (608)233-1678 home http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/Steenbock" O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O--O ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:46:56 -0500 From: Stacey Holbrook Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Jocelyn & Sheryl Denton-LeSage wrote: (snip) > Personally, I would tell anyone to read Bellwether first. I couldn't get > into TSNOTD at all, but Bellwether made me laugh out loud. I've recommended > it to my friends. I do have to agree with this. *Bellwether* paved the way for TSNOTD for me. While I enjoyed NSNOTD, it is one of those books that I had to read in the right mood or I wouldn't have liked it at all. I just jumped into *Bellwether* and had a great time. > Sheryl Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:25:39 +1200 From: Ianthe Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Bellwether To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Stacey wrote: >I do have to agree with this. *Bellwether* paved the way for TSNOTD for >me. I think a lot of us seem to be agreeing on this, it was the first Willis book that I read, and Sheryl was right, it's really funny. We all know people like Flip, I'm sure! I read the *Doomsday Book* second, then *Lincoln's Dreams*, then *TSNOTD* and *Remake* and *Unchartered Territory* somewhere inbetween. Apart from the last two mentioned (I guess you could say) lesser novels, *Bellwether*'s lighter, and shorter than any of the other biggies, so it's a good one to start with. It's captures popular culture and management in a really great way and it made me stop and ask if I acted like some of Sandra's workmates... For me, the two things, (no three things) that really led into Bellwether were the chaos theory, there's to be some thread in there that connects with the self-correction mechanism in *TSNOTD*, although I'm no chaos theorist; the social satire that lets Willis make fun of everybody, although rarely herself, she's not self-deprecating, and most of her characters take themselves very seriously; and the chapter headings in Bellwether, describing the different fads, also the quotes at the start of each section. (Okay, five things) also, the constant reference to literature, Robert Browning seems to be to *Bellwether* what Jerome K Jerome is to *TSNOTD*, and the romance. The books really are quite similar, you've got a quasi-science/social problem that is brought to sort of rights through a series of near misses by the protagonist, who falls in love without quite realising it, in all that chaos.... Her characters aren't very self aware are they? But the thing is, that while a lot of people seem to find this a flaw, I think that it's charming. Jenn ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:27:06 -0500 From: Annalise Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU > I do have to agree with this. *Bellwether* paved the way for TSNOTD for > me. While I enjoyed NSNOTD, it is one of those books that I had to read in > the right mood or I wouldn't have liked it at all. I just jumped into > *Bellwether* and had a great time. > > Stacey (ausar@netdoor.com) I gave "Bellwether" to my Dad to read, a man that really doesn't much, and then usually not fiction. He loved it so much that he would NOT stop talking about it for an entire weekend, and he wasn't even done reading it yet. Edie -- ----- annalise@ripco.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:27:06 -0700 From: SMCharnas Subject: Re: [*FSFFU-LIT*] Bellwether and TSNOTG To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU >The books really are quite similar, you've got a quasi-science/social >problem that is brought to sort of rights through a series of near misses by >the protagonist, who falls in love without quite realising it, in all that >chaos.... Her characters aren't very self aware are they? But the thing is, >that while a lot of people seem to find this a flaw, I think that it's charming. > >Jenn It's not so easy to make such characters acceptable, let alone charming, in our highly, ironically self-aware age; it's a tribute to Willis' skills -- and the strength of her authorial fondness for her characters -- that she succeeds at this for many readers. Suzy Charnas ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:50:41 -0700 From: Jessie Stickgold-Sarah Subject: [*FSFFU-LIT*] BDG: TSNOTD To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU I'm surprised at the number of people who think _Doomsday Book_ and TSNOTD are so different, since to me they had almost all of the same characteristics. Each of them is populated by people who don't know what's going on, each has a mystery, each is jam-packed with tiny tidbits of information; and in the end, almost all of those tidbits are relevant. Doomsday Book does it more successfully, I think, and is also a less lightweight book, but both had exactly the same feel to me. I will admit that the first time I read TSNOTD I had to make a concerted effort to ignore plot; I had no clue what was going on until about the time Ned got on the river. Luckily I love the sort of comedy which features a very long sequence of preposterous disasters, so it wasn't hard to keep going. The part which I found least effective was Ned's total inability to cope with Princess Arjumand: I was a *long* way through the book before I realized why he was so unbelievably stupid as to let the cat, if you'll forgive me, out of the basket. Was this obvious to everyone else? I didn't guess what either of the butlers were doing, so perhaps I'm just slow. Nor have I read the original Three Men In A Boat; but I did well with the Sayers references, which made me happy. (In fact, when I re-read _Strong Poison_ last week I came upon the throwaway line "Go to Coventry" -- in a faked seance, of course. About fell out of my chair laughing.) Connie Willis seems to have a bizarre sort of hit-or-miss appeal. I've read several of her short stories and found them boring; _Bellwether_ was entertaining but had a little too much fake science for me. _Light Raid_ was only just bearable (although her long-out-of-print novel _Water Witch_ was wonderful when I was 12. Can't find it now.) But I loved DB and liked TSNOTD quite a bit, aside from the rather rushed and cramped "explanation". Yet half the people on this list seemed to have the exact opposite opinion. Go figure. jessie