Russ, Joanna - To Write Like a Woman: Essays in Feminism and Science Fiction

[oyceter]

I think I liked the two other Joanna Russ books I've read better (What Are We Fighting For? and How to Suppress Women's Writing), but that is largely because I am much more interested in feminism than I am in SF.

I know! I am a genre reader, but not really an SF reader -- I grew up on fantasy, and that's still what I seek out. And I've read very little SF, so many of the things that Russ comments on, I don't know enough about to really analyze. I also haven't read several other works she refers to, including Willa Cather and "The Yellow Wallpaper" and Shirley Jackson (um. yes i know. i will some day....).

On the other hand, I continue to enjoy Russ' casual, conversational style and notes, along with her wit and her way of looking at things. I may not always agree with her, but I like that she continues to examine "marginal" genres and works, though this collection of essays focuses more (solely?) on white women instead of on POC.

Also, I am glad to have finally read this, despite the horrific overdue fine my library will charge, because I have now finally read her essay on Gothics, "Somebody's Trying to Kill Me, and I Think It's My Husband"! I'm excited because coffeeandink refers to it for romances, and I'm excited because I feel more equipped to read the Gothics rachelmanija has given and lent to me.

So, recced, but more recced if you have actually read what Russ is referring to.

Comments

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I am a genre reader, but not really an SF reader -- I grew up on fantasy, and that's still what I seek out.

You've mentioned this before, and I keep meaning to say that "sf" as in "sf fandom" is generally assumed to mean fantasy as well, and I tend to think of the two genres as blurring into each other, since for most of their history writers would do both instead of just one or the other.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

I agree with this as well.

SF doesn't always mean the sterile rivethead stuff. In fact these days that part of the genre is really on its last legs.

[oyceter]

*nods* I sometimes think of them as blending and sometimes not (I had a really hard time deciding to do books: sf and books: fantasy as separate tags!). I think Russ is differentiating between the two in some of her essays, though, or at least it seemed like she was referring more to the SF side of things than fantasy, particularly when she was critiquing how literary critics read SF and when she's talking about Delany's new tense-based definitions of SF and fantasy.

Fandom-wise, it's sort of weird -- I tend to see the LJ people I read as being more fantasy-focused, but I had the impression of cons and genre TV as being more SF-focused. But I could be wrong about that -- I think part of my impression is because more talk of the history of fandom involves SF and SF magazines? My general impression is that pre-1970s SF/F tended to be more SF-focused, and I have no idea why I think that.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

A lot of pre-1970s "science fiction" was really science fantasy: fantasy of various genres (swords and sorcery, adventure, epic) with a thin gloss of sf to add respectability or plausibility or just because it was standard at the time.

Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros has a totally unnecessary prologue about a modern man transported via dream to Venus or something, before ditching him and getting on with the epic adventures of decadent Demon Lords. C. S. Lewis' Space trilogy has a first volume that is genuine science fiction, but the second, despite beginning with a trip to Venus by rocket ship, is pure fantasy allegory, a revision of the Fall of Man; and the third is a weird combination of urban fantasy and dystopian sf. Leigh Brackett and C. L. Moore's work, like Ray Bradbury's, often felt much more like fantasy with an sf setting (ie, another planet) or like an sf/fantasy hybrid than what we generally think of science fiction in the Asimov/Heinlein sense. Etc.

PS. Have you read C. L. Moore? She's worth reading. So is Brackett, but the latter perhaps only if you have a taste for pulp adventure.

[oyceter]

A lot of pre-1970s "science fiction" was really science fantasy: fantasy of various genres (swords and sorcery, adventure, epic) with a thin gloss of sf to add respectability or plausibility or just because it was standard at the time.

Oh, interesting! As you can tell, I have read very little from pre-1970, and not much from the 70s and the 80s either!

What Moore do you rec?

C. L. Moore

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Her short stories. She has some novels but they're more sf-standard.

Here's where it gets a bit complicated, for two reasons:

1. She has quite a few collections, and has been anthologized all over the place. For minimum overlap of material, I would look for The Best of C L Moore, Jirel of Joiry, and Northwest Smith. But these may all be out of print, so it might be easier reading some stories in anthologies.

2. She co-wrote a number of stories with her husband Henry Kuttner, and those stories were published under several pseudonyms, of which "Lewis Padgett" is the best-known. So look for that name too.

Of the stories, I highly recommend "Shambleau," "Vintage Season," "No Woman Born," and "Black God's Kiss." I really like most of the stories about Jirel of Joiry (swordswoman in creepy fantasy world) and Northwest Smith (tough guy with hidden vulnerable side in science fantasy world.) They're all sort of pre-feminist in some ways but have subversive elements in others, so general warning for that. I can't be more specific without spoilers. Oh, and try not to be spoiled-- Moore often has, not so much twist endings, but stories whose plots take unexpected turns.

Re: C. L. Moore

[chomiji]

>> "Black God's Kiss." <<

Hmmm, I should re-read that - my memory says it's very cool but I don't remember the details.

Re: C. L. Moore

[oyceter]

Oh cool, thank you! I will try and look those up.

[littlebutfierce]

I keep meaning to say that "sf" as in "sf fandom" is generally assumed to mean fantasy as well,

Really? I tend to use it that way, & I know other people do too, but I always end up feeling like we're in the minority. Especially in terms of cons whose subtitles say something about being an SF con. Like the one time I went to WorldCon I totally felt like the minority in a huge way (er, & not in the usual race sense). And even @ WisCon, unless it's specifically a panel about fairy tales or the Endicott Studio or something, I feel like a lot of the time it ends up dominated by science fiction. YMMV, obviously! Perhaps I am just prone to feeling excluded. ;)

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I tend to assume discussions will cover both sf and fantasy unless it's otherwise specified, but that only tells you about my personal usage, really. I haven't been to many sf cons, and Wiscon is the only one I go to regularly, so you know more about usage there than I do. :)

It's odd, I've always loved reading sf and fantasy, but I never felt like an sf fan because I didn't belong to the con culture. My entry into fandom has been through the Internet.

[oyceter]

It's odd, I've always loved reading sf and fantasy, but I never felt like an sf fan because I didn't belong to the con culture. My entry into fandom has been through the Internet.

Me too! For media fandom and anime/manga fandom as well. Ah, internet, the great enabler...