Conference noted::sf

    	SF Topic 784 deals with how female SF authors deal with the male
    characters in their works.
    
    	Larry
    

Thanks Larry,

     I took a look at the previous notes (sorry about the redundancy of this
note. new to this file and only slowly wending thru the backlog). 

-What impressed me was that almost all of the respondants were male. 
 Maybe that says that most sf Readers are still male, even tho there are 
 more female sf Writers?

- I thought the categorization of sf as male and fantasy as female was a good 
  one. Fantasy does seem less metallic, if that's the word I want. (Jeeves 
  would know.)

- As was Don Rudman in his note, I was impressed with how many disclaimers
 were made ("don't misconstrue this as sexism but..."). In some political
 sense, maybe this is still a sensitive topic demanding disclaimers.
 The disclaimer that still surprises me these days is hearing from younger 
 women "I'm definitely not a women's libber, but..." One generation seems to 
 work so hard raising people's consciousness and training them to insert a 
 certain disclaimer, and the next generation seems to recoil a little from 
 that consciousness, and the next ...  
 But don't take this comment wrong. I'm not a sexist.

- I was also hugely impressed by the depth and breadth of reading that folks
  in this file have done. I scribbled out the names of a couple dozen authors
  and stories to look up. If you don't see another note from me for the next
  year or two it's because I'm busy reading. Thanks to everyone for the 
  pointers.


Bandicoot

    re:.2
    
    Actually, I think the concept of "male <-> science fiction" and
    "female <-> fantasy" is, at best, overgeneralizing. Science
    fiction doesn't have to be militaristic tech stuff. Kate Wilhelm,
    for example, has been doing elegant non-techie science fiction
    for decades. And before her were Leigh Brackett, C.L. Moore, and
    Andre Norton. In each of those last three cases, they also wrote
    fantasy, but then, during the "Golden Age" many writers wrote both.
    
    --- jerry
    --- jerry

    Also, many male writers have written and are still writing fantasy. 
    Poul Anderson, Roger Zelazny, and Orson Scott Card, for instance.
    
    The concentration on technology has dimmed considerably since the
    "Golden Age."  (I never saw it as particularly golden, myself.  Even
    when super-gadgets are in the foreground instead of the background,
    most of the authors I read don't linger over their technical details. 
    They can't; most of these gadgets are impossible by current
    understanding.  Instead, they concentrate on the gadget's effect on
    society, or its tactical use in an action-adventure plot.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re.4
    
    Just as I feel that "real" rock and roll died with the rise of
    the Beatles, I feel that "real" science fiction ended with the
    publication of "Stranger in a Strange Land".  The popular music
    of the late sixties, of the seventies, and of the eighties is
    undoubtedly better written, and shows much higher levels of
    musicianship, virtuosity, and showmanship, but it ain't rock and
    roll. It's not as much fun, it does not possess the vitality.
    Same with "science fiction"; much better written, more thoughtful
    and more humanities oriented surely, but there is very little in
    the current manifestation of the genre', written by either sex
    that stirs in me that sense of wonder, and belief in the possibilities
    that I had when I first read "The Last Spaceship" or "Methuselah's
    Children".  The world has changed, and so have I. perhaps it's just
    me.
    

    Re .4 (Earl):
    
    >The concentration on technology has dimmed considerably since the
    >"Golden Age."  (I never saw it as particularly golden, myself.  Even
    >when super-gadgets are in the foreground instead of the background,
    >most of the authors I read don't linger over their technical details. 
    >They can't; most of these gadgets are impossible by current
    >understanding.  Instead, they concentrate on the gadget's effect on
    >society, or its tactical use in an action-adventure plot.
         
    The same was true for much of the Golden Age.  Doc Smith, in his Lensman
    Series, for instance, mentioned the Bergenholm as an inertia neutralizer
    but didn't go into the cloying details of, say, the pre-Golden_Age
    Gernsbackian _Ralph 124C41+_, which was as footnoted as an older textbook
    with descriptions on how similar effects (e.g., an artificial comet)
    had already been achieved in a laboratory.  The sidestepping of
    the technical while trying to sound technological reached absurd heights
    in novels like _World of Null-A_ in the description of the ingravity
    parachute or the function of the distorter.
    
    Ray Bradbury once said that [true] Science Fiction takes you to
    the edge of a cliff, and that Fantasy pushes you off.  I think he
    was implying that being pushed off a cliff was more enjoyable, but
    then, I didn't write "The Jar" or "Skeleton" (both of which I enjoy,
    FWIW).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Old quote, from an interview with a famous SF writer:
    
    Q: When was the Golden Age of Science Fiction?
    
    A: Fourteen
    
    That is, the goldenness lies in the reader.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Well, one woman's view is that there's too much concern with
    categorization. Science fiction, fantasy, SCIENCE fantasy, etc.
    There are lots of female authors in every genre, now -- sf included.
    Some are good writers, some are mediocre, some are not worth reading.
    Styles vary.  Technology insight varies.  Just like the guys.  I
    think it might be easier to find women writers you like by asking
    for people who's style is similar to male writers you like.  I think
    you are right that there will be substantially fewer women writing
    heavily plot-oriented "heavy metal" sf, but there are a few. 
    
    But it is interesting to examine this issue.  I tend to prefer fantasy
    to hard-core sf.  That results in my collection being
    disproportionately female.  I read a little "real" sf, but the books
    and authors are carefully selected.  I guess I prefer to SEE the
    tecchie tales in Star Trek and movies, and imagine the fantasies.
    
    I have a theory, too, that science and technology have built up
    so much velocity that it's hard for a sf writer to produce a
    speculative technological scenario that almost immediately is seen
    as fact or as a dated bad guess!  If I were a writer I'd find that
    a little frustrating.  I mean, suppose you wrote a space story about
    a voyage out of the solar system and neglected to take into account
    last weeks news about Neptune's moons, etc.  Things change so fast,
    it's hard to keep very far ahead.  Back during the Golden Age (so-named
    by males, I'm sure!! ;^)  ) technology was more gosh-wow.  Now it's
    everyday.  In the '50's who would have imagined (in sf) compact
    discs or better yet, CDV?  Yet how many of us reading this file
    own them and take them for granted now?
    
    Also, literature tends to move in cycles.  Golden Age sf reflects
    the novels and other literature of that time, and current writing
    does that too.  Writers like to move on, try new styles, attempt
    new approaches.  
    
    IMHO
    
    Sherry

    Re: -.1,-.2
    
    	True. The world of science is so different as is our perception
    of it. The "golden age" of sf was barely a generation away from
    horse and buggies. When Heinlein was born, most people didn't have
    a telephone and many communities were without electricity. Of *course*
    their fiction would have a technological "gosh-wow" look to it.
    And that look rubs off on the reader.
    
    	Fiction itself has changed. I never liked the "golden age" of
    sf. There were a few nice things that got published but by and large
    it was pretty boring. The writers were not very good at their craft.
    Look at Fred Pohl's early work and look at Gateway. Miles and miles
    of difference.
    
    	If I have a favorite period of sf, it's the late fifties and
    early sixties: a. bester, p.k. dick, richard mckenna, kit reed.
    These people really started to crank.
    
    	To return to the topic at hand, i.e., female sf, as far as I
    am concerned the best fiction being written in sf today is being
    largely written by women. connie willis, leguin, wilhelm. 
    
    
    steve p    

    Re 818.8
    
    This male's viewpoint is the same as yours- prefer fantasy, more
    women authors than men, etc.
    
    One genre I can't think of as many women as men writing in just now 
    is Cyberpunk. Is the Cyberpunk genre more of a male viewpoint?
    
    Cheers,
    	George
    
    

    RE: I dunno, it's a small sub-genre even for males. There's just
    not that many people working "pure" cyberpunk. But on the female
    side there's Pat Cadigan. Sometimes Connie Willis is claimed as a 
    c-punk (even though she wears Peter Pan collars :-)). Alice Sheldon is 
    sometimes pointed to as an ancestor. Pat Murphy is a "friend of the 
    family."
    
    Fred

    I enjoyed the comment about the "golden age" being 14. I started
    reading SF at age 13 and loved it even though female heros were
    extremely rare. In fact, many stories didn't include women at all.

    Today I read mostly female authors. Maybe it's to make up for the
    early years :*). I find that even in this notesfile I pass over the
    male discussions of how an FTL drive would work and similar topics.
    Who cares? I've accepted the premise that these items exist for the
    sake of the stories and read the story for it's enjoyment value.

    I don't understand the allegation that female writers don't have
    plots and merely have characters. Can you give some examples? MZB
    certainly has plots, so does Bujold and a dozen others. What are
    you calling a plot if these don't qualify? Does there have to be
    machinery to make a plot?

    Technology grows and changes in ever faster leaps. Basic human
    nature and human character weakness is a continuing reality
    regardless of the technological background. What difference if the
    UM (ulitimate weapon) exists except that some human would stoop for
    political reasons to use it? And what could be more interesting than
    trying to understand why a human would choose to use technology in
    an evil or beneficial way? The BUTTON is nothing, the HAND that
    presses it is everything. liesl

    I agree with most of the foregoing discussion, especially .12.
    
    The longer I live (I'm 31) and the more events that occur in my
    life (my wife gave birth to our first child 10 and 1/2 months ago,
    named Hannah Cirocco, for my fondness of the name and Varley's
    character in the Gaean books) the more I'm convinced that it's the
    people in life that make the difference.  Technology is secondary.
    
    I must confess that I haven't read many female sf writers, any
    recommendations?  (I've seen a few reading through here)
    
    Will

    RE .13
    
    Recommendations abound in here, and it really depends on whether you
    like hard-core SF or SF/Fantasy.
    
    Marion Zimmer Bradley has to be close to the top of my list,
    particularly the Darkover novels.
    
    Ann McCaffrey is also right up there, with the Pern novels.
    
    And Julian May is excellent.
    
    I don't read a lot of hard-core SF, these three are mostly in the
    area of fantasy, with a little SF thrown in.
    
    ... Bob
    

    	I don't have time to do a true survey, but the number of women
    authors (in the SF sections of Walden or B Dalton) who have covers
    portraying demons and dragons and other fantasy props is staggering.
    And I'm not that interested in fantasy.

    There are many women authors I read and have read. In fact, just went
    to a Flea Market, and got a BUNCH of SF (some by women) for average
    .50 a book. What I get tired of is militant feminists. Actually, I get
    tired of any fanatic. They just can't seem to quit harping on their own
    little brand of obsession, and it distorts the story. (If anyone has
    read L. Neil Smith's stuff - and I actually kind of like some of his
    Libertarian philosophy - you know what I mean). MZB's early stuff was
    great. As she moved into the eighties, she acquired a cause. I read
    Spock's World by ? Carey ? and the story wasn't that bad, but the
    author couldn't leave it alone. She had to inform us that every woman
    character she mentioned in passing on the Enterprise was busy getting
    multiple Doctorates, or saving civilization. Or she would go on about
    how crucial some mundane job was. At one point, she had a nurse take
    Kirk to task as a chaunvinist for wondering aloud if nurses were
    authorized to write prescriptions. The female SF writers who go about
    their craft with an eye to entertaining their readers through plot and
    character development are great, but those who want to preach are the
    pits. Admittedly, there are some male authors with `causes' they won't
    let alone, but it seems to be less prevalent in the male than in the
    female of the species.

     Mike J

    re:.15
    
    While Diane Carey has written a couple of Star Trek novels, SPOCK'S
    WORLD is not one of them -- that was written by Diane Duane.
    
    re:.13
    
    Recommending authors to people without knowing what they like is
    always tricky, but among those I find do generally excellent work
    are Kate Wilhelm, Ursula K. LeGuin, Joan Vinge, C. L. Moore,
    Leigh Brackett, and James Tiptree Jr. (really Alice Sheldon).
    
    --- jerry

           Correct as ususal Jerry; I checked when I returned home.

                                    Mike J