Hrm. I have a hard time explaining my problems with Crusie. I wish I had Mely's insight...one of the few times I've come out and said I didn't like Crusie's politics was in a coffeeandink thread, and Mely pointed me to this other thread with a very good discussion about Crusie and heteronormativity. Wish I could remember where it was.
In essence, Crusie takes a bunch of stuff that I *adore* the politics of, like women forming close bonds, sisterhood functioning as family, women making bold life changes....but the way the stories evolve, it's like it all gets twisted very subtly into those elements making stuff worse than it was to start.
Bujold does something kinda similar. Miles dates all these hot, really ooomphy women (bodyguards, admirals, etc). He wants to marry them, but they turn him down, often because he wants them to become a Wife as a profession. He eventually finds a woman, who is all Strong and Stuff, because she was abused and who he loves, and she says Yes, and does become his wife, and is supposedly his equal, because as a sideline she's a gardener. A really good gardener. It's like she took the view that women ought to become whatever they want, but then twists it completely, so that only by refusing that do they get the brass ring (the countess-ship). The emperor falls for a woman because she's zaftig and his mom died when he was young. Okay, yes, she's a businesswoman, but when the emperor's done proposing, her brain dribbles out her ears and she's overwhelmed by the desire to become a princess and there's a shiny white horse and everything.
It's hard for me to articulate, because it's like the whole thread of political ickiness is under the surface, sneaking around. In Fast Women, the heroine overthrows her whole life, and winds up the same place she was before: partner in a firm with a husband, her life revolving around him, and except for the change in the job type, there isn't much difference. Is this making any sense?
no subject
In essence, Crusie takes a bunch of stuff that I *adore* the politics of, like women forming close bonds, sisterhood functioning as family, women making bold life changes....but the way the stories evolve, it's like it all gets twisted very subtly into those elements making stuff worse than it was to start.
Bujold does something kinda similar. Miles dates all these hot, really ooomphy women (bodyguards, admirals, etc). He wants to marry them, but they turn him down, often because he wants them to become a Wife as a profession. He eventually finds a woman, who is all Strong and Stuff, because she was abused and who he loves, and she says Yes, and does become his wife, and is supposedly his equal, because as a sideline she's a gardener. A really good gardener. It's like she took the view that women ought to become whatever they want, but then twists it completely, so that only by refusing that do they get the brass ring (the countess-ship). The emperor falls for a woman because she's zaftig and his mom died when he was young. Okay, yes, she's a businesswoman, but when the emperor's done proposing, her brain dribbles out her ears and she's overwhelmed by the desire to become a princess and there's a shiny white horse and everything.
It's hard for me to articulate, because it's like the whole thread of political ickiness is under the surface, sneaking around. In Fast Women, the heroine overthrows her whole life, and winds up the same place she was before: partner in a firm with a husband, her life revolving around him, and except for the change in the job type, there isn't much difference. Is this making any sense?