Okay, I brought my copy. . . (HOW TO SUPPRESS. . .) LONG!
Dan'l DanehyOakes
WOMEN'S WRITING by Joanna Russ, and are used without permission. . .:
To begin with, the assertion about "less women writing."
...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
Hardly the _short_ period of time some correspondents have said Russ must be
referring to.
Now, some arguments, chosen pretty much at random (though sequentially). . .
but first this, from chapter 5, as a representative example.
Not only is female experience often considered less broad, less
representative, less important, than male experience, but the
actual content of works can be distorted according to whether
the author is believed to be of one sex or the other. Thus in
1847 a novel appeared in Englan by a new and unknown writer.
Reviewers found it "powerful and original," says Carol Ohmann.
Its "essential subject was taken to be a representation of
cruelty, brutality, violence. . . wickedness in its most extreme
forms. . . reviewers were variously displeased, inclined to be
melancholy, shocked, pained, anguished, disgusted and sickened
[but] a number. . . allowed the novel to be the work of a
promising, possibly great, new writer." Acocording to Ohmann,
Percy Edwin Whipple of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW found the novel's
hero "bestial, brutal, indeed monstrous." The author was
"spendthrift of malice and profanity." In THE AMERICAN REVIEW
George Washington Peck called the language that of a "Yorkshire
farmer or a boatman or of frequenters of 'bar-rooms and steamboat
saloons.'" The author he called "a rough sailor" who did not
understand women and did not see them as they were. In 1850
the novel appeared in a second edition, its authorship became
known, and although not one comma of the text was thereby
changed, the subject matter underwent an immediate and
mysterious transformation. For one thing brutal realism
becomes "a self-consistent monster" to the reviewer of the
ATHENAEUM, who then spends most of his 2,000 words on the
author's life, not the novel. In the PALLADIUM, Sydney Dobell,
who had guessed the authorship three months reviously, called
the novel a love story and stressed "the youthfulness of the
author [whom] he likened. . . to a little bird fluttering its
wings against the bars of its cage." The NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW
finds the book's "peculiarity or strangeness mirrors the
'distorted' fancy of the writer's life, which was isolated and
deprived." Twentieth century critics continue to see the novel
as written involuntarily by a naive author (Mark Schorer), an
imperfectly controlled work (Thomas Moser) whose real subject is
the hero's "magic sexual power" but which undergoes "femininization"
in the second half and a falling-off in artistry. The novelist is
again writing involuntarily and did not "consciously" accept the
novel's true subject. Ohmann assures us: "I could go on -- to
essays by Lord David Cecil, Richard Chase, Elliott Gose, Albert
Guerard, James Halfley, Harry Levin, C. Day Lewis, Wade Thompson,
and even Arnold Kettle, and the list would still not be complete."
The novel? Emily Bronte's WUTHERING HEIGHTS. As Carol Ohmann
puts it, "there is a considerable correlation between what readers
assume or know the sex of the writer to be and what they actually
see or neglect to see in 'his' or her work."
A woman _cannot_ write about evil like a coarse Yorkshire boatman;
therefore she _did_ not; therefore the novel _must_be_ a love story
and a "self-consistent monster." This view of WUTHERING HEIGHTS
must perforce find Heathcliff's sadism and the story of the second
generation (Cathy Linton and Hareton Earnshaw) embarassing; the 1939
film with Merle Oberon and the handsome young Laurence Olivier agreed
with Thomas Moser; they lit Olivier beautifully, deleted his cruelty,
and drastically compressed the last half of the novel. . . [pp 42-43]
Note that for all topics Russ ranges broadly across the centuries. (She only
goes back, generally, as far as 1650, concluding that if there is not much
writing from women before then, we need not necessarily conclude that it was
because women did not write. . .)
From now on, except in brackets, all text is Russ's:
[On "Prohibitions:"]
. . . the absence of formal prohibitions against committing art does not
preclude the presence of powerful, informal ones. For example, poverty and lack
of leisure are certainly powerful deterrents to art. . . It's commonly supposed
that poverty and lack of leisure did not hamper middle-class persons during the
last century, but indeed they did -- when these persons were middle-class women.
It might be more accurate to call these women attached to middle-class men, for
by their own independent economic exertions few middle-class women could keep
themselves in the middle class; if actresses or singers, they became improper
persons (I will deal with this later), and, if married, they could own nothing
in England during most of the century. . . the best an unmarried lady could
manage was a governess-ship. . . [pp 6-7]
Nor does the situation change much in the twentieth century. Sylvia Plath,
rising at five in the morning to write, was -- as far as her meager work-time
went -- fortunate compared to Tillie Olsen, a working-class woman, who describes
the triple load of family, writing, and full-time outside job necessary for
family survival. Olsen writes:
When the youngest of our four was in school. . . the world
of my job. . . and the writing, which I was somehow able to
carry around within me, through work, through home. Time on
the bus, even when I had to stand. . . the stolen moments at
work. . . the deep night after the household tasks were done
. . . there came a time when this triple life was no longer
possible. The fifteen hours of daily realities became too
much distraction for the writing. . . My work died
Olsen also quotes Katherine Mansfield:
The house seems to take up so much time. . . So often this
week you and Gordon have been talking while I washed dishes
. . . And after you have gone I walk about with a mind full
of ghosts of saucepans and primus stoves. . . and you [John
Middleton Murry] calling, what ever am I doing, writing,
"Tig, isn't there going to be tea? It's five o'clock."
[p. 8]
. . . even if one can deal with the matter of time and all the familial
obligations. . . even if formal education is not formally denied. . . there is
still that intangible known as climate of expectation. Here in 1661 is Anne
Finch, Countess of Winchilsea, blessed with leisure, wealth, and (according to
Virginia Woolf) an understanding husband:
Alas! a woman that attempts the pen
Such a presumptuous creature is esteemed,
That fault can by no virtue be redeemed.
And here is Dorothy Osborne's comment on Winchilsea's contemporary, Margaret
Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, also leisured, wealthy, and "married to the
best of husbands": "Sure the poore woman is a little distracted, shee could
never bee soe rediculous else as to venture at writeing book's and in verse too,
if I should not sleep this fortnight I should not come to that."
In 1837 Charlotte Bronte wrote the then poet laureate, Robert Southey, [who]
"advised her to give up thoughts of becoming a poet": "Literature cannot be the
business of a woman's life and ought not to be. The more she is engaged in her
proper duties, the less leisure she will have for it even as. . . recreation."
. . . Ellen Glasgow took the manuscript of her first novel to. . . a
"literary advisor" (that is, agent) who told her, "You are too pretty to be a
novelist. Is your figure as lovely in the altogether as it is in your clothes?"
He then attempted to rape her. . . A publisher to whom she then took her
manuscript made no such assault; instead "he wanted no more writing from women,
especially from women young enough to have babies . . . 'The best advice I can
give you. . . is to stop writing and go back to the South and have some
babies. . . The greatest woman is not the woman who has written the finest book
but. . . the woman who has had the finest babies." [pp 10-12]
[Okay, enough of that. The point here -- and this is all chapter 1 -- is the
_informal_ methods used to discourage women from writing in the first place,
and from publishing if they do write. Chapter 2 is called "Bad Faith" and is
a general comment on the techniques used to dismiss what does get published.]
Privileged groups, like everyone else, want to think well of themselves and to
believe that they are acting generaously and justly. Conscious concpiracy would
either quickly stop, or it would degenertate into. . . unpleasant, armed, cold
war. . .[T]alk about sexism or racism must distinguish between the sins of
commission of the real, active misogynist or bigot and the vague, half-conscious
sins of omission of the decent, ordinary, even good-hearted people, which sins
the context of institutionalized sexism and racism makes all too easy. [p 18]
[This is, of course, the kind of conservatism I have accused others of in
this debate.]
At the level of high culture with which this book is concerned, active bigotry
is probably fairly rare. _It_is_also_hardly_ever_necessary_ [italics Russ's],
since the social context is so far from neutral. To act in a way that is both
sexist and racist, to maintain one's class privilege, it is only necessary to
act in the customary, ordinary, usual, even polite manner.
Nonetheless, I doubt that any of us who does so is totally without the
knowledge that something is wrong. To slide into decisions without allowing
oneself to realize that one's making any, to feel dimly that one is enjoying
advantages without trying to become clearly aware of what these advantages are
(and who hasn't got them), to accept mystifications because they're customary
and comfortable, cooking one's mental books to congratulate oneself on
traditional behavior as if it were actively moral behavior, to know that one
doesn't know, to prefer not ot know, to defend one's status as already knowing
with half-sincere, half-selfish passion as "objectivity" -- this great, fuzzy
area of human ingenuity is what Jean Paul Sarre calls _bad_faith_. When spelled
out, the techniques used to maintain bad faith look morally atrocious and
appallingly silly. That is because they _are_ morally atrocious and appalingly
silly. But this only shows when one spells them out, i.e. becomes aware of
them. [pp 18-9]
[Chapter 3 begins the survey of techniques with "Denial of Agency."]
Margaret Cavendish, the Duchess of Newcastle, says Virginia Woolf, was accused
of hiring a male scholar to write her works
because she used learned terms and "wrote of many matters
outside her ken." She flew to her husband for help, and he
answered that the Duchess "had never conversed with any
professed scholar in learning except her brother and my-
self." [The Duchess adds] She had only seen Des Cartes and
Hobbes, not questioned them; she did indeed ask Mr. Hobbes
to dinner, but he could not come.
Wolfe calls the above "the usual objections" and indeed across the channel a
century later Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun also had to face "the same accusation."
[p20]
. . . as late as the 1930s Stella Gibbons could parody male insistence that
Branwell Bronte was the real author of his sisters' works. . .[p21]
But there are subtler alternatives to the flat denial of agency: _She_didn't_
write_it;_he_did._ One is: _It_wrote_itself_. This ishighly unlikely, and yet
the ploy is used. . .
For example, Percy Edwin Whipple. . . supposed that two persons had written
[JANE EYRE], a brother and a sister, since: ". . . there are niceties of thought
and emotion in a woman's mind which. . . often _escape_unawares_ from a female
writer" (italics mine [i.e., Russ's]). Or, in the twentieth century, about the
author of FRANKENSTEIN. . . "All Mary Shelley did," writes Mario Praz, "was to
provide a passive reflection of some of the wild fantasies which were living in
the air around her." [p21]
. . .
Since _It_wrote_itself_ looks pretty silly. . . some critics have invented a
subtler version which appears to restore agency to the female writer while
actually insisting that some "he" had to wrote it, that is: _The_man_inside_
_her_wrote_it._. . . "So Mary McCarthy has been complimented. . . on her
'masculine mind.'" [p22]
In its final, most subtle form, the denial of agency takes the form: A woman
did not write this because the woman who wrote it is _more_than_a_woman_. (The
highest praise Dickens could bestow upon his dead sister-in-law, Mary Hogarth,
was that she "was in life almost _as_far_above_ the foibles and vanities of
_her_sex_and_age_ as she is now in Heaven" (italics mine).[p23]
[Chapter 4 covers "Pollution of Agency." This is, among other things, the
chapter where Russ discusses, as promised, actress-and-singers as "improper
persons," but we won't go into that here. In fact, I'm going to start using
less examples and just follow the outline of Russ' argument, or this will wind
up being excessively long even for me.]
An alternative to denying female agency in art is to pollute the agency -- that
is, to promulgate the idea that women make themselves ridiculous by creating
art, or that writing or painting is immodest (just as displaying oneself on the
stage is immodest) and hence impossible for any decent woman, or that creating
art shows a woman up as abnormal, neurotic, unpleasant, and unlovable. . .
Literary history is, I think, familaiar with the Catch 22 by which women who
were virtuous could not know enough about life to write well, while those who
knew enough about life to write well could not be virtuous. . .[p25]
And here's Norman Podhoretz, explaining the rapidity of Susan Sontag's rise as a
critic:
the availability of a vacant position in the culture. . . . Dark
Lady of American Letters. . . . Miss McCarthy no longer occupied
it, . . . having been recently promoted to . . Grande Dame. . . .
The next Dark Lady would have to be, like her, clever, lerned, good-
looking, capable of writing family-type criticism as well as fiction
ith a strong trace of naughtiness. But. . . by the 1960's, it was not
nearly enough to confess to having slept with The Man in the Brooks
Brothers Shirt. . . hints of perversions and orgies had to be there. . .
Elaine Reuben comments, "a female critic/intllectual is judged on her figure,
her hair, and her ability to talk dirty". . . [p34]
[Chapter 5: "The Double Standard of Content"]
Critics who are too sensible to succumb to some version of _She_didn't_write_it_
and too decent to resort to the (always rather snide) _She_did_but_she_
_shouldn't_have_ can often find other ways to dismiss [good writing by women].
Motives for the dismissal differ: habit, laziness, reliance on history or
criticism that is alreay corrupt, ignorance (the must usual of all, surely), the
desire not to disturb the comfort based on that ignorance (much less excusable),
the dim (or not-so-dim) perception that one's self-esteem or sex-based interests
are at stake, the desire to stay within an all-male, all-white club that is,
whatever its drawbacks, familar and comfortable, and sometimes the clear
perception that letting outsiders into the club, economoically or otherwise,
will disturb the structure of the _quid_pro_quo_ that keeps the club going. For
example, Podhoretz makes it clear that Susan Sontag became a critic because of
"the . . . availability of _a_ vacant position in the culture. . ."(italics
mine). [p39]
_She_wrote_it_but_look_what_she_wrote_about_ becomes _She_wrote_it,_but_it's_
_unintelligible/badly_constructed/thin/spasmodic/uninteresting,_etc._, a
statement by no means identical with _She_wrote_it_but_I_can't_understand_it_
(in which case the failure might be with the reader). Behind _She_wrote_it
_but_it's_unintelligible_ lies the premise: _What_I_don't_understand_doesn't_
_exist_, like Sylvia Plath's "hysteria" which came "completely out of herself"
. . .
The social invisibility of women's experience is not "a failure of human
communication." It is a socially arranged bias persisted in long after the
informaton about women's experience is available (sometimes even publicly
insisted upon). [p48]
[Chapter 6: False Categorizing]
. . . a complicated now-you-see-it-now-you-don't sleight of hand in which works
or authors are belittled by assigning them to the "wrong" category, denying them
entry into the "right" category, or arranging the categories so the majority of
"wrong" [people, i.e., women] fall into the "wrong" category without anyone's
having to do anything further about the matter. [p49]
One of the funniest (and most excusable) examples of false categorizing in art
history may well be the society column reporting one of Mary Cassatt's rare
visits to the United States: "Mary Cassatt, sister of Mr. Cassatt, president
of the Pennsylvania Railroad, returned from Eurpoe yesterday. She has been
studying painting in Europe and owns the smallest Pekingese dog in the world."
. . . J.J. Wilson also mentioned one critic who called Cassatt Degas' pupil --
although the two actually met at a one-woman showing fo Cassatt's work. And
there is also the (let us hope) apocryphal story of the high school textbook
which called Marie Curie the "laboratory assistant of her husband, Pierre"
[pp49-50]
[Russ quotes Marilyn Hacker:] This week. . . an article by Harold Bloom in THE
NEW REPUBLIC, a. . . capsule review of Poetry Books Published in 1976. He
didn't mention _one_ book by a woman -- and he mentioned over 20 books,
including Best Small Press Book, Best First Book, etc. . . . in a year that had
new books from New York trade houses by Audre Lorde, Robin Morgan, Marge Piercy,
Susan Griffen, Muriel Rukeyser. . . . And how many new titles from Alice James,
Out and Out, Shameless Hussy, etc.? And not a _word_ about _any_ of that, not
even to say he didn't like it!
[Chapter 7: "Isolation"]
When a work or an author (of the "wrong" sort) does make it into the literary
canon. . . [b]y careful selection it is possible to create what I would like to
call _the_myth_of_the_isolated_achievement_, that is, the impression that
although X appears in this history of literature or that curriculum or that
anthology, it is only because of one book or a handful of (usually the same)
poems, and therefore X's other work is taken to be non-existent or inferior. . .
Some literary examples: in the fall of 1974 there were three or four
different paperback editions of Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN in print and on
sale in the bookstore of the university where I worked. There was no edition
of Shelley's THE LAST MAN or in any other bookstore in town. There was. . .
on edition of THE LAST MAN in print in the United States, a relatively
expensive edition issued by a university press.
In about 1971 I was teaching Charlotte Bronte in a women's studies course
and I decided to use her VILETTE instead of JANE EYRE. The number of different
publishers who have editions of JANE EYRE I know not; I found several editions
in the bookstore of my university (and one more, a year later, in the "Gothic"
section of the local supermarket). But there was not one edition of VILETTE
in print in the United States, whether in paperback or hard-cover and I finally
had to order the book (in hard-cover, too expensive for class use) from England.
(The only university library editions of VILETTE or SHIRLEY I could find at that
time were the old Tauchnitz editions: tiny type and no leading.) [pp62-3]
. . .a female graduate student in English, to whome I had loaned Ellen Moers'
LITERARY WOMEN, burst in, eyes wide, passionately declaring, "You mean _she_
wrote _that_?" "She" turned out to be Elizabeth Barett Browning and "that" was
"A Curse for a Nation," especially the lines,
A curse from the depths of womanhood
Is very salt, and bitter, and good.
All she had previously read of EBB's was a few of the SONNETTS FROM THE
PORTUGESE. She -- as I -- had been convinced that this author's only good work
was a few over-anthologized love poems, that the substitution of Devoted Wife
for Poet was true, and that "Aurora Leigh" was a dull, silly piece of journalism
manque whose feminism (if it had any) was timid and dated. . .[p63-4]
[Russ quotes the following lines of poetry. . .]
All my walls are lost in mirrors,
whereupon I trace,
Self to right hand, self to left hand,
self in every place,
Self-same solitary figure, self-same
seeking face.
These chilling, trancelike, almost schizophrenic lines with their technical
brilliancy ("s" is the hardest repeated sound to handle in English; these six
lines have thirteen s's -- and two z's for good measure!) could not possibly
have been written by [a description previously quoted from the Standard
Critical Apparatus:] the docile spinster whose heart was like a singing bird
and who spent her life writing docile love poems or simple-minded nursery
fairytales. Of course they were not; that _persona_ (another re-categorizing)
has nothing to do with the real author of the poem, who is the _poet_ Christina
Rosetti. [p64-5]
If a woman writer presents herself as a public, political voice, delete this
aspect of her work and emphasize her love poems, declared (on no evidence) to
be written to her husband -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
If a woman writer is frank about heterosexuality, delete any of her work
that depicts male inadequacy or independent female judgement of men --
Aphra Behn.
If a woman writes homosexual love poetry, suppress it and declare her an
unhappy spinster -- Amy Lowell.
If you still have trouble, invent an (unhappy) heterosexual affair for her to
explain the poems -- Emily Dickinson.
If a writer is openly feminist, delete everything of that sort in her work
and then declare her passionless, minor, and ladylike -- Anne Finch, Countess of
Winchilsea.
If she is not easy to edit, writes ten-act plays about women going to war to
rescue their men, plays about women's academies becoming more popular than men's
academies, and endless prefaces about men, women, sexist oppression, and the
mistreatment she herself endures, forget it; she's cracked -- Margaret
Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle.
If she writes abotu women's relationships with women and "women heroes" (in
Hacker's phrase) print a few of her early lyrics and forget the rest -- H.D.
If she writes about women's experiences, especially the unpleasant ones,
declare her hysterical or "confessional" -- Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton. [Russ
earlier makes the point that "confessional" literature seems to be okay when
it comes from Rousseau or St. Augustine but not from a woman.]
If she carefully avoids writing about female experience and remains
resolutely detached, polished, impersonal, and nonsexual, you may praise her at
first, then declare her Mandarin, minor, and passionless -- Marianne Moore.
[Chapter 8: "Anomalousness."
[Russ surveys a number of anthologies for representation of women, and discovers
that while the percentage always hovers about 5-8%, the actual selection varies
a great deal. She adds:] It seems that when women are brough into a reading
list, a curriculum, or an anthology, men arrive too -- let the number of men
drop and the women mysteriously disappear. [p80; on page 85, Russ refers to
this percentage as] the restrictions on the quantity of visibility allowed women
writers: 5 to 8 percent.
Imagine a middle-aged, white, male professor. . . asked to let into the Sacred
Canon of Literature the following:
call me
roach and presumptuous
nightmare on your white pillow. . . .
Audre Lorde, "The Brown Menace or Poem to the
Survival of Roaches"
Anger is hard to take. But there are worse things. Imagine our professor
confronted with a long, elegant, comic poem about impotence, masturbation, and
premature ejaculation. Here is Canto 9:
In vain th'inraged Youth essay'd
To call its [his penis'] fleeting vigor back.
No motion 'twill from Motion take;
Excess of Love his Love betray'd:
In vain he Toils, in vain Commands;
The Insensible fell weeping in his Hand.
The above is from Aphra Behn's "The Disappointment." Of those who are not
ignored completely, dismissed as writing about the "wrong things," condemned for
(whatever passes for) impropriety (that year), described as of merely technical
interest (on the basis of a few carefully selected worst works), falsely
categorized as other than artists, concemned for writing in the wrong genre, or
out of genre, or simply joked about, or blamed for what has, in fact, been
deleted from or misinterpreted out of their work by others, it is still possible
to say, quite sincerely:
_She_wrote_it,_but_she_doesn't_fit_in._
Or, more generously: _She's_wonderful,_but_where_on_earth_did_she_come_from_?
[pp. 85-6]
[Ch 9 is "Lack of Models." I'll restrict myself to one quotation Russ takes
from Elaine Showalter:]
Let us imagine a woman student entering college to major in English literature.
In her freshman year. . . the texts in her course would be selected for their
timeliness, or their relevance or their power to involve the reader. . . .any
of the [recently advertised]. . . texts. . . for Freshman English. . . [like]
THE RESPONSIBLE MAN, "for the student who wants literature relevant to the world
in which he lives," or CONDITIONS OF MEN, or MAN IN CRISIS: PERSPECTIVES ON THE
INDIVIDUAL AND HIS WORLD, or. . . REPRESENTATIVE MEN: CULT HEROES OF OUR TIME,
in which the thirty-three men represent such categories as the writer, the poet,
the dramatist, the artist, and the guru. . . the only women included are the
Actress Elizabeth Taylor and the Exestential Heroine Jacqueline Onassis.
Perhaps the student would read a collection of stories like THE YOUNG MAN IN
AMERICAN LITERATURE: THE INITIATION THEME, or sociological literature like THE
BLACK MAN AND THE PROMISE OF AMERICA. . . [or] she might study the eternally
relevant classics such as OEDIPUS; as a professor remarked in a recent issue of
COLLEGE ENGLISH, all of us want to kill our fathers and marry our mothers. And
. . . she would inevitably arrive at the favorite book of all Freshman English
courses, the classic of adolescent rebellion, PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG
MAN.
[pp.95-6]
[Chapter 10 is called "Responses," and discusses strategies women have used in
the face of all this.]
Although women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels published in English
in the eighteenth century and women dominate certain fields such as the
detective story or the modern Gothic (in popularity if not in numbers),
undoubtedly one response to _Women_can't_write_ is not to. . . In summer
writing workshops I've attended in science fiction, women have averaged 20
percent or fewer of the total number of students. . .Figures for BOOKS IN PRINT
and similar sources would be interesting, but as far as I know, no one has done
the research. [p97]
Another response is to write, but to agree with the assertion that women's
writing must be inferior to men's or that women are (or ought to be) not writers
but something else first. . . [p97]
Another strategy is to deny some part of the statement _Women_can't_write_. . .
Thus it is possible to answer _Women_can't_write_ with _I'm_not_a_woman_. To
assert this literally (as the adolescent Weil did) is not kindly treated
socially; however it's possible to re-categorize oneself in less obvious ways.
[p99]
[Or one can respond:] _I_am_more_than_a_woman_ -- exactly what Lowell asserted
about Plath. [p102]
[Chapter 11 is on "Aesthetics." There are also an Epilogue, an Author's Note,
and an Afterword. I choose not to quote any of these, largely because of space;
this is too long already.]
I can't die yet -- I haven't seen THE JOLSON STORY!
--Larry Fine
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Mark Rosenfelder
warning: same damn debate-- if you don't want to read it, press 'n' now.
In article <1992May20....@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM
(Dan'l DanehyOakes) quotes extensively from Joanna Russ's _How to Suppress
Women's Writing._ Thanks for providing the quotes.
I completely agree that there has been plenty of discouragement of women's
writing-- economic conditions which have made it difficult for them to
write, critical hostility, and rampant sexism. And I can well believe that
many women artists have been foolishly neglected. For instance, I'm a big fan
of the painter Marie Laurencin. (*Who*? Yeah, that's the point.)
However, I don't think there's any need to posit an unconscious male
conspiracy. Why should we? Isn't conscious sexism a big enough obstacle?
But that little word "unconscious" is very valuable; it completely exempts
the theory from proof. If someone isn't explicitly sexist, well of course
he's unconsciously so, and he has no way to prove he isn't.
JR:
> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
So the conspiracy wasn't doing a very good job suppressing women's writing,
was it?
If women don't write as much as men, women's writing has been suppressed.
If women write the majority of novels, then women's writing has been
suppressed. How neat a thing is an unfalsifiable theory.
Jusdging from your citations (a bit risky, I know), Russ seems to lay great
weight on the negative criticism women writers have had to endure. And
the quotations she finds are certainly appalling, and prove the prevalence
of sexist jerks, all the way up to our own time.
To put them in context, however, let's look at a few critical reactions to
19C and 20C music.
Of Richard Strauss:
"I can sum Strauss up in four words: little talent, much impudence."
"His music is an orchestral riot that suggests a murder scene in a
Chinese theater."
"Zarathustra must have possessed the pulmonic powers of a rhinoceros
shouting through a megaphone."
Of the premiere of "The Rite of Spring":
"The audience reacted as it should have: it immediately revolted.
People laughed, booed, hissed, imitated animal noises and, although
tiring, renewed their efforts when a handful of proponents of the music
began a free-for-all fight."
A poem parodying Wagner:
"For harmonies, let wild discords pass;
Let key be blent with key in hideous hash;
Then (for last happy thought!) bring in your Brass!
And clang, clash, clatter, clatter, clang, and clash."
Nicolas Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective" contains a cross reference
of specific insults, including:
Frightful (Berlioz); Frog legs, thrown into violent convulsions (Wagner);
Froglike sexuality (Krenek); Frying pans (Wagner); Fungi, hateful (Liszt);
Futile (Berg, Debussy, Gershwin, and Schoenberg)...
Comments Slonimsky:
"Critics simply don't vesuviate the way they used to. That sort of
vituperative inflammation has gone completely out of style. I mean, one
critic once described the 1st movement of Bartok's 4th String Quartet
as conveying 'the singular alarmed noise of poultry being worried to
death by a Scotch terrier;' [...] Who ever says that sort of thing anymore?
Or my personal favorite, a German review of [...] Riegger's 'Dichotomy':
'It sounded as though a pack of rats were being slowly tortured to death,
and meanwhile, from time to time, a dying cow groaned.'"
"Nowadays, a critic may say that music he doesn't like is ugly, but he's
unlikely to say that the composer is ugly, which is what one of the critics
I cite said of Debussy. And no one goes in anymore for the kind of
personal attack you get in that 1841 review of Chopin I included in the
book: 'There is an excuse at present for Chopin's delinquencies; he is
entrammeled in the enthralling bonds of that arch-enchantress, George
Sand... We wonder how she can be content to wanton away her dreamlike
existence with an artistic nonentity like Chopin.'"
The contemporary press coverage of Abraham Lincoln is also worth consulting--
"jackal" was one of the milder insults.
In other words, the media used to indulge in a level of scurrility which
is now somewhat out of style, except on the Internet. It takes a certain
amount of misdirection to turn this into a specific conspiracy against women.
DDO:
>Note that for all topics Russ ranges broadly across the centuries. (She only
>goes back, generally, as far as 1650, concluding that if there is not much
>writing from women before then, we need not necessarily conclude that it was
>because women did not write. . .)
A significant omission, to my mind. There sometimes seems to be an assumption
that the treatment of women in the Victorian era was typical of the entirety
of history. Not so; see Dorothy L. Sayers' _Are Women Human?_, which notes
the greater economic importance of women in medieval times. The first effect
of the Industrial Revolution, for instance, was that men wrested a whole
industry (clothing) from women. Women were often the de facto administrators
of noble households in medieval times, and important arbiters of culture and
courtly life.
JR:
>Privileged groups, like everyone else, want to think well of themselves and
>to believe that they are acting generaously and justly. Conscious conspiracy
>would either quickly stop, or it would degenertate into... unpleasant,
>armed, cold war... [T]alk about sexism or racism must distinguish between
>the sins of commission of the real, active misogynist or bigot and the vague,
>half-conscious sins of omission of the decent, ordinary, even good-hearted
>people, which sins the context of institutionalized sexism and racism makes
>all too easy. [p 18]
DDO:
>[This is, of course, the kind of conservatism I have accused others of in
>this debate.]
And then denied doing: "I most certainly did not call *you* conservative."
Of course, because I disagree with the conspiracy-theory type of feminism
is no reason to assume that I passively accept the status quo.
Sorry for the length of this article. Hopefully the musical quotations at
least were amusing.
ObSF ref: anybody read Robert Graves' story of a future matriarchal utopia?
I think it's called _North Wind Rising_; if it isn't, something else is.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>
>warning: same damn debate-- if you don't want to read it, press 'n' now.
>In article <1992May20....@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM
>(Dan'l DanehyOakes) quotes extensively from Joanna Russ's _How to Suppress
>Women's Writing._ Thanks for providing the quotes.
My pleasure (not to mention aching typing fingers).
>For instance, I'm a big fan
>of the painter Marie Laurencin. (*Who*? Yeah, that's the point.)
It is indeed. Can you give me a pointer or two? (I'm a big Cassatt fan,
but these days everyone knows Cassatt -- no special research on my part.)
>However, I don't think there's any need to posit an unconscious male
>conspiracy. Why should we? Isn't conscious sexism a big enough obstacle?
The word "conspiracy" seems to me to show that you've missed the point. It
isn't a "conspiracy;" indeed, the concept of an "unconscious conspiracy" seems
to be self-contradictory.
The idea is this: the field is not neutral. Neutral actions (what Russ refers
to as "sins of omission") do not in any way change the bias of the field, so it
stays biased in favor of people like me, white males. Privilege is self-
perpetuating with no effort on the part of the privileged.
What is often forgotten is that most men, when the modern incarnation of the
women's movement struck up in the '70s, were not so much hostile to it as just
plain _puzzled_. They hadn't done anything, had they? They'd always treated
women decently, hadn't they? Another fact about privilege: it is _invisible_
to the privileged, taken for granted.
So the word "unconscious" applies. But "conspiracy?" Hardly. It isn't the
actions of the privileged class that maintains privilege; it's their _inaction_.
>JR:
>> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
>> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
>
>So the conspiracy wasn't doing a very good job suppressing women's writing,
>was it?
The point of this was, how many novels by women from this period have
survived and made "the Canon?" How many by men? Why the difference between
the proportion of those published and those which have survived?
Therefore this:
>If women don't write as much as men, women's writing has been suppressed.
>If women write the majority of novels, then women's writing has been
>suppressed. How neat a thing is an unfalsifiable theory.
really misses the point.
And "falsifiable" is applicable to scientific theory, not artistic or social
theory. Perhaps sociology will be a science one day [though I hope not: I
shudder at the lab experiments that would be required], but it is _not_ right
now, and to attempt to apply the requirements of the scientific paradigm is
a form of paralogia.
>Jusdging from your citations (a bit risky, I know), Russ seems to lay great
>weight on the negative criticism women writers have had to endure.
No; she lays weight on the _type_ of negative criticism -- or simple ignoring
-- women have had to endure, _types_ that simply have not been applied to
white men. (Partial exception: white male genre writers have had to endure
some of the "standard of content" techniques that have been applied to women.)
>To put them in context, however, let's look at a few critical reactions to
>19C and 20C music.
Or let's not. Your citations show that bad critics can indeed be remarkably
rude. But they do not bear on the _types_ of bad criticism that Russ cites.
Can you, for example, cite anything parallel to the story of the critical
reception of _Wuthering Heights_?
>DDO:
>>Note that for all topics Russ ranges broadly across the centuries. (She only
>>goes back, generally, as far as 1650, concluding that if there is not much
>>writing from women before then, we need not necessarily conclude that it was
>>because women did not write. . .)
>
>A significant omission, to my mind. There sometimes seems to be an assumption
>that the treatment of women in the Victorian era was typical of the entirety
>of history.
Oh, come on. The period from 1650 to 1980 is hardly "the Victorian era."
And the reason for cutting off at 1650 was simply that it is difficult-to-
impossible to find significant quantities of womens' writing from before then.
This may mean that women did not write prior to about 1650; or it may mean
that their writing has not survived. In any case, it is not an attempt to
restrict things to "the Victorian era," as you paralogically imply.
>Not so; see Dorothy L. Sayers' _Are Women Human?_, which notes
>the greater economic importance of women in medieval times. The first effect
>of the Industrial Revolution, for instance, was that men wrested a whole
>industry (clothing) from women. Women were often the de facto administrators
>of noble households in medieval times, and important arbiters of culture and
>courtly life.
. . . and for all that, not permitted to own property, generally to rule (recall
the English Civil War of the 1100s which occurred because the King left only a
daughter -- Margaret, I believe? -- and his nephew Stephen rebelled [having
sworn fealty to the daughter at the old King's deathbed], most of the nobles
[who had also sworn fealty] flocking to Stephen because women _couldn't_ rule,
everyone knew that), and so on. It was also during this period that the Roman
Church's schizophrenic attitude toward women (they were the source of all evil,
the weaker vessel that brought Sin into the world; they were all potentially
Madonnas and should inspire men) hit its nadir. Don't tell _me_ that medieval
times were less sexist. . .!
>DDO:
>>[This is, of course, the kind of conservatism I have accused others of in
>>this debate.]
>
>And then denied doing: "I most certainly did not call *you* conservative."
Ahem. And I still do not, though I wrote hurriedly (remember the length of
the posting the quoted text came from) and sloppily.
I accuse acts and statements of yours of conservatism. Your other statements
make it clear that you are not, at least by intent, conservative.
>Of course, because I disagree with the conspiracy-theory type of feminism
>is no reason to assume that I passively accept the status quo.
Very well, then: How do you challenge it? Passivity _is_ acceptance.
>Sorry for the length of this article. Hopefully the musical quotations at
>least were amusing.
They were indeed. Let me add my favorite description of Wagner: "Marvellous
moments; dreadful half-hours." (I might add, I'm a Wagner fan. . .)
>ObSF ref: anybody read Robert Graves' story of a future matriarchal utopia?
>I think it's called _North Wind Rising_; if it isn't, something else is.
Grin.
Mark A Biggar
>Quotes are from the 1983 University of Texas Press edition of HOW TO SUPPRESS
>WOMEN'S WRITING by Joanna Russ, and are used without permission. . .:
>
>To begin with, the assertion about "less women writing."
>
> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
>
>Hardly the _short_ period of time some correspondents have said Russ must be
>referring to.
Go to a bookstore and count
Fantasy 50% women
SF 30% women
Misteries 30% women
Romances 95% women
mainstream 40% women
women are still close to half of the novels published
--
mark BIggar
m...@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Lee Ballentine
>Quotes are from the 1983 University of Texas Press edition of HOW TO SUPPRESS
>WOMEN'S WRITING by Joanna Russ, and are used without permission. . .:
>To begin with, the assertion about "less women writing."
> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
>
[Followed by much else about women, writing, and oppression, most of
it entirely right-on.]
But what about s-f and fantasy? One of the niceties of Cawthorn and
Moorcock's FANTASY/THE 100 BEST BOOKS is its chronological organization.
Between Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN (1818) and the prolific Marjorie
Bowen's BLACK MAGIC (1909, a terrific book by a woman who wrote
nearly 150 books under half-a-dozen pseudonyms), C & M give only
WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1847), a great book but one which, despite the
ghost subtheme,we don't usually think of as a fantasy.
My question is, what aren't we seeing? Given all the statistics, the
fact that women writers, from Ann Radclyffe on, perfected and used
the Gothic conventions and turned them into a mass-market phenomenon,
both as readers and writers, in the 19th Century, where are the
borderline novels in which the Gothic elements become magical? Later
we have novels like Barbara Hunt's SEA CHANGE (1946) in which a
woman disappointed in love teaches herself wizardry, and
Charlotte Gilman's HERLAND (1915) an early exploration of a
single-sex society. Where are the missing links from the 1850s-90s?
Scholars awake!
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Mark Rosenfelder
In article <1992May21.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM
(Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>For instance, I'm a big fan
>>of the painter Marie Laurencin. (*Who*? Yeah, that's the point.)
>
>It is indeed. Can you give me a pointer or two? (I'm a big Cassatt fan,
>but these days everyone knows Cassatt -- no special research on my part.)
I wish I could. I've never seen a book devoted to her. She was a painter
and set designer in the '20s in France. The Orangerie and Jeu de Paume
museums used to have some of her works; either they still do or they've
been moved to the Musee d'Orsay.
She did a portrait of Coco Chanel which has been reproduced in a couple of
recent biographies of Chanel. One of them added that Laurencin's style
was "childlike", which probably qualifies as an insult of the type we're
talking about here. (Is Julian Schnabel childlike? At least ML could draw.)
Books on early 20C art might also reproduce some of her pictures.
>The idea is this: the field is not neutral. Neutral actions (what Russ refers
>to as "sins of omission") do not in any way change the bias of the field, so it
>stays biased in favor of people like me, white males. Privilege is self-
>perpetuating with no effort on the part of the privileged.
I don't agree; I think privilege takes a lot of work to maintain. To some
extent the difference here is terminological: after all, change takes even
more work. But the different point of view can suggest interesting
differences in strategy.
>And "falsifiable" is applicable to scientific theory, not artistic or social
>theory. Perhaps sociology will be a science one day [though I hope not: I
>shudder at the lab experiments that would be required], but it is _not_ right
>now, and to attempt to apply the requirements of the scientific paradigm is
>a form of paralogia.
I disagree; I think great harm has been done by not applying scientific
standards to sociological and economic claims. But that would take us
rather far afield. (I do agree that the scientific method doesn't apply to
artistic theory-- but I'd probably disagree with you on its worth, too. :-)
>>Judging from your citations (a bit risky, I know), Russ seems to lay great
>>weight on the negative criticism women writers have had to endure.
>
>No; she lays weight on the _type_ of negative criticism -- or simple ignoring
>-- women have had to endure, _types_ that simply have not been applied to
>white men. (Partial exception: white male genre writers have had to endure
>some of the "standard of content" techniques that have been applied to women.)
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about criticism of the
general form "You can't write (create art, etc.) because you're a ______",
I think examples could be found that fill in the blank for many variables
besides "women" and "nonwhite"-- country, religion, class, sexual preference,
and medium come to mind.
>Don't tell _me_ that medieval times were less sexist. . .!
I wouldn't venture to make such a sweeping observation. Sexism varies by
century, by area, by social class, by profession. How would you put it all
together?
>>Of course, because I disagree with the conspiracy-theory type of feminism
>>is no reason to assume that I passively accept the status quo.
>
>Very well, then: How do you challenge it? Passivity _is_ acceptance.
Precisely what I've disliked in this debate is your tendency to discuss the
character, actions, or psychology of your interlocutors. I'm not interested
in analyzing the supposed motives behind my positions; nor do I have to
submit my social action resume to you. You can assume that I act according
to my beliefs; I assume the same of you.
Lee Ballentine
>warning: same damn debate-- if you don't want to read it, press 'n' now.
>In article <1992May20....@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM
>(Dan'l DanehyOakes) quotes extensively from Joanna Russ's _How to Suppress
>Women's Writing._ Thanks for providing the quotes.
>JR:
>> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
>> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
>So the conspiracy wasn't doing a very good job suppressing women's writing,
>was it?
As any novelist will tell you, publication is the least of it. That's
the beginning of the story. Getting someone to notice the book once
it's published is the real challenge.
>If women don't write as much as men, women's writing has been suppressed.
>If women write the majority of novels, then women's writing has been
>suppressed. How neat a thing is an unfalsifiable theory.
>[followed by examples of male artists savaged by critics]
What interests me here is that on the one hand we have large numbers
of literary works created by women, presumably in the 18th AND 19th
centuries, and getting published, yet we have a critical climate which
disposes of them by inattention. Isn't it more charitable to those of
us who happen to be male to suppose that this inattention is more
unconscious than conscious?
And if it is this unconscious, background radiation level of culture,
that's responsible for our whole century having forgotten the
"glorious deeds of women," doesn't that fact help explain the
difficulty that contemporary women thinkers have had in bringing
this "unconscious" pattern of inattention to light?
[Warning, deliberate overstatements coming that have nothing to do with
the previous poster--not to be taken personally by anyone]
The male response to this critique tends to be on the order of "There's
nobody here but us chickens." I.e., denial, followed by more-or-less
open giggling at such an idea. "Me, subject to unconscious forces
that aren't immediately obvious while reading Sports Illustrated?
Ridiculous".
As for the promotion of unfalsifiable theories, for the non-academic,
non-philosophical, non-argumentative readers in our society, these
theories don't enter into it. They're simply denied the chance to
read the work that, everyone here seems to agree, is out there. The
critics ignore it, the chain bookstores won't buy it when it's reissued
because the publisher isn't on their shortlist, and the librarians
have forgotten where it is on their shelves.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Ryk E Spoor
>survived and made "the Canon?" How many by men? Why the difference between
>the proportion of those published and those which have survived?
Not to argue the fact that male domination of the field was not due
to unconscious bias -- I think it was. But just as an aside to the above...
Why in the world would anyone CARE if they got into "The Canon"?
Willy Shakespeare wasn't writing to get into The Canon. Dickens wasn't.
Melville wasn't.
Most of The Canon that I've read is bloody boring stuff. I'd rather be
known as a Stephen King than as a William Golding or William Kennedy (Hm.
Maybe if you're named William you have a better chance to be a Big Man?).
The women that HAVE made it into the Canon seem, offhand, to have
a better chance of writing something that remains readable and entertaining.
Jane Austen comes to mind. Maybe this says something about the nature of the
writing that women chose to do...
>They were indeed. Let me add my favorite description of Wagner: "Marvellous
>moments; dreadful half-hours." (I might add, I'm a Wagner fan. . .)
Again, as an aside: Have you seen the parody of Wagner's Ring cycle
by... oh, damn -- Anna ? Funniest thing I've seen.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Betsy Perry
>In article <1992May21.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>The point of this was, how many novels by women from this period have
>>survived and made "the Canon?" How many by men? Why the difference between
>>the proportion of those published and those which have survived?
>
>Willy Shakespeare wasn't writing to get into The Canon. Dickens wasn't.
>Melville wasn't.
It's deadly simple. If you don't make it into the Canon, or into
the collective consciousness (a la Sherlock Holmes, Fu Manchu, the
Scarlet Pimpernel), your books go out of print when you die, and nobody
ever reads them again. Which is why Dan'l used the word "survived" in
his comments.
When I think "Gosh, I *must* read some Thackeray," it's easy; I go to
a medium-sized bookstore and can find *Henry Esmond*, *The Rose and
The Ring*, whatever. (Even Waldenbooks will probably have a copy of
*Vanity Fair* on hand.) If I want to read Charlotte M. Yonge, I'm out
of luck. (Anybody who knows of Yonge novels still in print, please
correspond!) I have to find an old academic library that doesn't cull
its stacks to have any hope of finding Yonge.
Even the fact of a writer's existence can drop out of
sight if s/he isn't in the canon. I happen to know of Yonge
because another Usenetter discovered her in the Harvard stacks and
posted an interesting essay; Thackeray, by contrast, is a name that no
English major can avoid recognizing. (By the way, I like Thackeray;
I'm simply using him as an example of the advantages of being in the
canon.)
Joanna Russ (remember her?) points out that when she wanted to
teach *Villette* [two "L"s, guys, it's a French noun] in 1971, there
was not one edition in print in the United States. You can't discuss
a book in class if the students can't find a copy to read. You can't
even recommend a book to your friends if they can't find a copy --
vide the despairing discussions of Sturgeon elsewhere in this group.
> Again, as an aside: Have you seen the parody of Wagner's Ring cycle
>by... oh, damn -- Anna ? Funniest thing I've seen.
Anna Russell. Great stuff. Also the creator of "Write your own
Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta".
--
Betsy Hanes Perry (note P in userid) bet...@apollo.hp.com
Cooperative Object Computing Division, Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
Monster Grendel, tastes were plainish/Breakfast, just a couple Danish.
Graham Wills
Dan'l has already excepted the current period as a possible exception. So you
can't use bookshop stats. Furthermore, since bookshops carry *popular* books
in numbers rather than accepted greats, your statistics are just not relevant
to the discussion.
As a general comment, I'd like to thank Dan'l for putting a *massive* amount
of effort into that post. It makes the debate much more concrete.
It's also useful to know that the discussion is limited to the period
1650-1980(ish), since that changes things quite a lot. Since I read a lot
of works from previous eras, I had been taking the 18th century as quite short
in comparison, but obviously if we're discussing at most 340 years, it's not.
Another comment is that English language authors only are being considered.
Having set the limits, the exposition of Russ's work is enough to convince me
that, for English language authors writing between 1650 and the mid-late
20th century, there has been suppression of women's writing. However I still
feel that most of the reason for lack of women's work in "the canon" is due
to social pressure causing women to write what is not considered "great".
Given, however, that the situation is not as gloomy as it has been, and in
fact available evidence indicates a more normal parity is returning, is there
anything that should be done, apart from re-considering our current "canon"?
-Graham Wills
TCD Ireland.
Ryk E Spoor
>In article <206...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> seaw...@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
>> Why in the world would anyone CARE if they got into "The Canon"?
>>Willy Shakespeare wasn't writing to get into The Canon. Dickens wasn't.
>>Melville wasn't.
>It's deadly simple. If you don't make it into the Canon, or into
>the collective consciousness (a la Sherlock Holmes, Fu Manchu, the
>Scarlet Pimpernel), your books go out of print when you die, and nobody
>ever reads them again. Which is why Dan'l used the word "survived" in
>his comments.
You have a point here, but you blur together the Canon and the
Collective Consciousness (whatever you want to call it) -- and I think
that the latter is a more important thing to worry about. If you must worry
about it at all. Conan Doyle may not be in the Canon (in fact, he and
Verne tend to be sneered at) but they're published a lot more widely
and read a lot more than, say, Nobel Lit Prizewinner Golding (and thank
Gog for that!).
If you tell a really gripping or fun or interesting story, you'll
probably survive no matter what "The Literary Establishment" thinks of you.
(My favorite female author, besides Austen, was probably Laura
Ingalls Wilder. As a little slice of history that series of hers deserves
canon, in my opinion...)
>Anna Russell. Great stuff. Also the creator of "Write your own
>Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta".
Thank you -- I was going not-so-slowly nuts trying to remember
her name. Yes, I saw the G&S parody too -- and I'd just finished being
in "The Gondoliers", so it hit me even harder. I almost died laughing.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
refe...@bingaixa.cc.binghamton.edu
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Go to a bookstore and count
>Fantasy 50% women
>SF 30% women
>Misteries 30% women
>Romances 95% women
>mainstream 40% women
>
>women are still close to half of the novels published
Thank you for that bit of impromptu research! It makes my (and Russ's) point
all the better.
If -- as the 18th and late 20th Centuries seem to indicate -- women publish
just about as much fiction as men,
Then,
Why are so few works by women (typically, as Russ demonstrates by repeated
example, about 8%) included on "greats" lists and in "survey" anthologies?
The answer almost certainly _isn't_ active sexism; as Russ notes, people want
to think well of themselves, to think they're being fair.
The answer Russ proposes (and I support) is that the definitions, or
distinguishing characteristics, of "greatness," in literature are slanted in
favor of things men "are likely to write about" as opposed to things women
"are likely to write about." Note that I leave these "men's concerns" and
"women's concerns" deliberately unexplained, because there lurks beneath
those terms a whole nature/nurture debate that I _really_ don't want to get
into. Suffice it to say:
There are certain areas of experience that, because of biology, culture, and/or
socialization, women are more likely to experience than men, and likewise some
that men are more likely to experience than women.
The Canon of "greatness" in literature is defined, delineated, characterized,
however you want to put it, so that those areas of experience that are more
common to men are regarded as "more important" and those more common to women
are regarded as "less important."
This serves the purpose of _defining_ women's literature as "unimiportant" or
"less important" or "minor" without anyone's having to stoop to actual sexism.
Note also, that the definitions/delineations/characterizations of "greatness"
need not have been the product of active sexism. They were the characteristics
of literature that "spoke powerfully to" the people who originated the Canon
-- and, at that time, those were almost uniformly men, and white men at that.
With no malice whatsoever, it is possible to envision them going through books
and finding the ones that struck _them_ as powerful, and setting aside those
that did not.
A writer like Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte, who managed to convey "women's
experience" so powerfully that "even" these men felt it powerfully and included
it in the Canon, might be regarded as not merely gifted but _exceptionally_
gifted in the ways of words -- plausibly on the level of Dante or Shakespeare.
Helen Johnston
>(Dan'l DanehyOakes) quotes extensively from Joanna Russ's _How to Suppress
>Women's Writing._ Thanks for providing the quotes.
>
>I completely agree that there has been plenty of discouragement of women's
>writing-- economic conditions which have made it difficult for them to
>write, critical hostility, and rampant sexism. And I can well believe that
>many women artists have been foolishly neglected. For instance, I'm a big fan
>of the painter Marie Laurencin. (*Who*? Yeah, that's the point.)
>
>However, I don't think there's any need to posit an unconscious male
>conspiracy. Why should we? Isn't conscious sexism a big enough obstacle?
>
>But that little word "unconscious" is very valuable; it completely exempts
>the theory from proof. If someone isn't explicitly sexist, well of course
>he's unconsciously so, and he has no way to prove he isn't.
>
>JR:
>> ...women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels
>> published in English in the eighteenth century. [97]
>
>So the conspiracy wasn't doing a very good job suppressing women's writing,
>was it?
>
>If women don't write as much as men, women's writing has been suppressed.
>If women write the majority of novels, then women's writing has been
>suppressed. How neat a thing is an unfalsifiable theory.
>
writing are COMPLETELY IGNORED by the "establishment". This is more
than just "foolish neglect" - it's not even admitting they existed. Try
looking up who invented the novel some time - chances are you'll find a
statement like the following (from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia):
"...The novel established itself in England in the
18th century through the realistic works of Daniel
Defoe, Samuel Richardson and Henry Fielding."
when in fact women in England had been writing AND PUBLISHING novels
for years by that time. Dale Spender even cites examples of men in the
eighteenth century who wrote under female pseudonymns in order to get
published! So it's NOT that women weren't writing, it's that, in all the
various ways that Russ describes, their works were ignored, discarded
or suppressed. Now whether you want to call this a conscious conspiracy
or an unconscious one is, I think, a matter for debate.
Helen Johnston
john...@fys.ruu.nl
Dan'l DanehyOakes
I think/hope we've gotten past the stage where we think we're calling each
other names, anyway; there are still misunderstandings, partly because I
tend to write fairly compressed prose and assume that others will pick up
the implied argument; partly because I've also written in a rather hurried
manner several times in this debate. I'll try to clarify a few things I've
said below.
Mark, thanks for continuing this discussion.
In article <1992May22.0...@spss.com> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992May21.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM
>(Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>Privilege is self-perpetuating with no effort on the part of the privileged.
>
>I don't agree; I think privilege takes a lot of work to maintain. To some
>extent the difference here is terminological: after all, change takes even
>more work.
H'mmm. It takes _something_ to maintain, certainly, but I'd say that most of
that _something_ is provided, not by "work," but by sheer inertia.
What I mean, is that by doing one's "normal" activities in a manner that doesn't
take the trouble to _oppose_ the sexist (racist, sexual-preference-ist,
religionist, etc.) bias of the social field, one effortlessly does two (very
closely related) things:
1) Allows simple habitual Xisms to slip in. E.g., Dr. Bloody
Bronowski's THE ASCENT OF YOU-KNOW-WHO; all those anthologies
about MAN AND X, etc.; which make the generic human being
male (and usually white).
2) Neither Bronowski nor the anthologists is, imio, being consciously
sexist; but this passive use of language reinforces, at no
energy-cost to the language-user, the image that the generic (and
"ideal," in the Platonic sense) human being is male (white, etc.).
Thus the inertia inherent in the social field is self-perpetuating with no
"work" or "effort."
Passivity reinforces existing biases. There _are_ no neutral actions. (Or,
as Samuel R. Delany once wrote -- and I'm quoting from memory, so the exact
wording may be off -- "There are no sexists decisions to be made. They have
already been made. There are, however, anti-sexist decisions to be made.")
>But the different point of view can suggest interesting
>differences in strategy.
It does indeed! Which I'll get back to at the bottom of this miniessay.
>>And "falsifiable" is applicable to scientific theory, not artistic or social
>>theory. Perhaps sociology will be a science one day [though I hope not: I
>>shudder at the lab experiments that would be required], but it is _not_ right
>>now, and to attempt to apply the requirements of the scientific paradigm is
>>a form of paralogia.
>I disagree; I think great harm has been done by not applying scientific
>standards to sociological and economic claims. But that would take us
>rather far afield.
I don't doubt that scientific standards/methods _can_ be applied to sociology.
What I was trying to say above is that they _have_ not been; that sociology has,
at this time, no claim to be a "science."
I also said, and repeat, that I don't think I want it to be, because I don't
think that human beings, especially in mass numbers are the proper objects,
for experimentation, except for voluntary participation. But "people who
will volunteer for experiments," especially for experiments on the scale that
would be required to gain any meaningful data for sociological purposes, is
an inherently and obviously self-biassing sample (which, yes, also casts a
shadow of doubt on large areas of statistical psychological results), so to
gain genuinely meaningful results you'd have to use non-voluntary objects (and,
in fact, not inform them; knowledge of participation in a sociological
experiment will affect the behavior of volunteers and non-volunteers alike):
and that's (imio) immoral.
>I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about criticism of the
>general form "You can't write (create art, etc.) because you're a ______",
>I think examples could be found that fill in the blank for many variables
>besides "women" and "nonwhite"-- country, religion, class, sexual preference,
>and medium come to mind.
That's true, and she points it out, especially wrt the matter of race. (She
has some really choice quotes about "Negro spirituals" and their "childlike"
faith and simplicity.)
HOW TO SUPPRESS. . . describes strategies and techniques which are easily
generalizable to any "wrong" social subgroup, and Russ makes it clear in several
places that they _are_ applied to other underclasses besides women. She chose
to write specifically about the suppression of _women's_ writing for a number
of good reasons, including (1) women are far-and-away the _largest_ such
subclass (constituting, as they do, somewhat over 50% of the human race); and
(2) Russ herself is a woman.
>>Don't tell _me_ that medieval times were less sexist. . .!
>
>I wouldn't venture to make such a sweeping observation. Sexism varies by
>century, by area, by social class, by profession. How would you put it all
>together?
God, do I have to? >sigh< "Sexism is the sex-based assignment of roles beyond
those absolutely required by biological reality to men and women, and, by
extension, the set of techniques, conscious, unconscious, active, and passive,
used to maintain those assignments." How's that for a working definition?
>>>Of course, because I disagree with the conspiracy-theory type of feminism
>>>is no reason to assume that I passively accept the status quo.
>>
>>Very well, then: How do you challenge it? Passivity _is_ acceptance.
>
>Precisely what I've disliked in this debate is your tendency to discuss the
>character, actions, or psychology of your interlocutors. I'm not interested
>in analyzing the supposed motives behind my positions; nor do I have to
>submit my social action resume to you. You can assume that I act according
>to my beliefs; I assume the same of you.
Sloppy writing on my part again. Though I can easily see how "you" was taken
in the particular sense, I honestly meant it in the general and not as a
challenge to your integrity. What I perhaps should have written, to be
clearer, would be:
Given that you don't accept the [not exactly conspiracy-based]
feminist theory I'm blathering about here, which has some pretty
clear implications in terms of what action is required of people,
including men, who would set things right -- given that you
_don't_ accept that theory, what general strategies would _your_
theory recommend for challenging the [sexist, racist, etc.]
status quo?
Mark Rosenfelder
>As any novelist will tell you, publication is the least of it. That's
>the beginning of the story. Getting someone to notice the book once
>it's published is the real challenge.
I don't want to hear this. I've written an sf novel myself, and don't feel
up to worrying about the travails that would follow the improbable event
of publication...
>What interests me here is that on the one hand we have large numbers
>of literary works created by women, presumably in the 18th AND 19th
>centuries, and getting published, yet we have a critical climate which
>disposes of them by inattention. Isn't it more charitable to those of
>us who happen to be male to suppose that this inattention is more
>unconscious than conscious?
For one thing, what's so unconscious about the sexism these writers
experienced? The criticisms Russ quotes show an active and overt sexism.
For another-- no, I don't think it's more charitable. To accuse a man
of conscious bigotry is to say he's a villain. To accuse him of unconscious
bigotry is to say he's a villain and a hypocrite.
>As for the promotion of unfalsifiable theories, for the non-academic,
>non-philosophical, non-argumentative readers in our society, these
>theories don't enter into it. They're simply denied the chance to
>read the work that, everyone here seems to agree, is out there. The
>critics ignore it, the chain bookstores won't buy it when it's reissued
>because the publisher isn't on their shortlist, and the librarians
>have forgotten where it is on their shelves.
Here we get into economic realities-- and good thing, too, because they're
more tractable. Chain bookstores aren't going to stock loads of 18C women's
literature out of solidarity with feminism. But they'll stock it if it sells.
Fruitful approaches would seem to include--
--get those idiotic tax laws that discourage keeping books in print changed
--make the books available (the folks behind Virago have the right idea)
--concerned citizens should make it a point to buy these books rather than
using the library; patronize the stores that sell them; avoid the stores
that do not.
--find and publicize really good books which were neglected for reasons of
sexism; people are much more receptive to trying out a good book than
they are to being called bigots.
The same applies to people who want a better selection of sf, I think.
Take your business to the stores with a really good selection, even if
they're a bit farther out of the way.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In article <1992May21.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>The point of this was, how many novels by women from this period have
>>survived and made "the Canon?" How many by men? Why the difference between
>>the proportion of those published and those which have survived?
> Why in the world would anyone CARE if they got into "The Canon"?
>Willy Shakespeare wasn't writing to get into The Canon. Dickens wasn't.
>Melville wasn't.
Absolutely correct, and I doubt Jane Austen was either. We're not inquiring
into "why they wrote." We're inquiring into "why men's work has survived
and women's work hasn't" ("survived" being defined as "still being read after
all these years" -- and generally, books from the 19th century or earlier
that are "still being read" are Canonical).
> Most of The Canon that I've read is bloody boring stuff. I'd rather be
>known as a Stephen King than as a William Golding or William Kennedy (Hm.
>Maybe if you're named William you have a better chance to be a Big Man?).
If you find it boring, you find it boring; I suspect that you read a lot of
it too young. (Nobody under about 30 should be forced to read Henry James.)
But would you rather be Stephen King -- questions of money aside -- than
Dickens or Shakespeare?
(And, please, resist the temptation to say, "Yes, because Dickens and
Shakespeare are both dead.")
> The women that HAVE made it into the Canon seem, offhand, to have
>a better chance of writing something that remains readable and entertaining.
>Jane Austen comes to mind. Maybe this says something about the nature of the
>writing that women chose to do...
Or it may say that a woman's writing has to be of _exceptionally_ high quality,
even compared to the level of the "Canon," to be accepted?
> Again, as an aside: Have you seen the parody of Wagner's Ring cycle
>by... oh, damn -- Anna ? Funniest thing I've seen.
Anna Russell. And the best part is, it's not a parody; it's a pretty much
straightforward plot recital. That 20 hours sounds pretty silly when reduced
to 20 minutes. . .
Ryk E Spoor
>and women's work hasn't" ("survived" being defined as "still being read after
>all these years" -- and generally, books from the 19th century or earlier
>that are "still being read" are Canonical).
Point taken, but I don't recall people such as Conan Doyle, Verne,
et al., as being considered Canon. Another poster covered them as being
"collective conscious" -- maybe not respected as Litteratchoor but boy
are they remembered.
In terms of numbers of books read per year, I'd venture to bet that
these Collective Conscious type books beat the PANTS off the "Canon" without
even working up a sweat, especially if you eliminate those of the Canon which
are read because someone is forced to read it. (I'd be willing to bet that
Sherlock Holmes alone beats out most of the Canon combined).
>If you find it boring, you find it boring; I suspect that you read a lot of
>it too young. (Nobody under about 30 should be forced to read Henry James.)
>But would you rather be Stephen King -- questions of money aside -- than
>Dickens or Shakespeare?
they're both ... oh, all right. Point taken; I'd rather be Shakespeare.
However, Shakespeare was writing plays basically for cash, as far as I
recall, so I'd say King could be just as likely to be "Shakespeare" 500
years from now as anyone else. He certainly has a head start on recognition.
>(And, please, resist the temptation to say, "Yes, because Dickens and
>Shakespeare are both dead.")
It was VERY difficult to resist. Besides, King is scarier! I could
mug people in alleys for their cash without even THREATENING them with
his face. :)
>> The women that HAVE made it into the Canon seem, offhand, to have
>>a better chance of writing something that remains readable and entertaining.
>Or it may say that a woman's writing has to be of _exceptionally_ high quality,
>even compared to the level of the "Canon," to be accepted?
Point taken. Very good. However, I'd say that means that the standards
of the Canon should be raised. Junk some of the losing men! (Golding comes
instantly to mind).
>Anna Russell. And the best part is, it's not a parody; it's a pretty much
>straightforward plot recital. That 20 hours sounds pretty silly when reduced
>to 20 minutes. . .
"He's fighting Fafnir. FAFNIR. Remember Fafnir? Giant? Built
Valhalla? Well, he's a dragon now, don't ask ME why..."
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Just another theatre geek.....
>For one thing, what's so unconscious about the sexism these writers
>experienced? The criticisms Russ quotes show an active and overt sexism.
>
>For another-- no, I don't think it's more charitable. To accuse a man
>of conscious bigotry is to say he's a villain. To accuse him of unconscious
>bigotry is to say he's a villain and a hypocrite.
Sidebar: Don't think so.
I've had plenty of friends who've exhibited unconscious bigotry. I'd
call them neither villains or hypocrites. It's when you call them on it and
what their response is that what matters.
--
Roger Tang gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Executive Producer Emeritus, Asian Theatre at the UW;
The definition of having balls is a non-singer who goes karaoke singing
with the cast of a musical revue.
Mark Rosenfelder
>Mark, thanks for continuing this discussion.
You're welcome!...
>H'mmm. It takes _something_ to maintain, certainly, but I'd say that most of
>that _something_ is provided, not by "work," but by sheer inertia.
Perhaps my point would be clearer if I say that the *cost* of maintaining
prejudice is high, and is often comparable to that of combatting it.
This is most striking, perhaps, with race/class issues. Consider the cost
of maintaining the poor in ghettos: funding huge police forces, moving
businesses, relying on cars instead of the public transportation system
that doesn't extend to the suburbs, loss of productivity from underused
people...
Thus the argument for ending prejudice doesn't have to rely solely on moral
pressure (which some people don't respond to).
>I don't doubt that scientific standards/methods _can_ be applied to sociology.
>What I was trying to say above is that they _have_ not been; that sociology
>has, at this time, no claim to be a "science."
>
>I also said, and repeat, that I don't think I want it to be, because I don't
>think that human beings, especially in mass numbers are the proper objects,
>for experimentation, except for voluntary participation. [...]
Science doesn't have to be experimental, and often can't be: you can't run
direct experiments on evolution, or continental drift, or the Big Bang.
(The notion that all sciences should work like physics has been called
"physics envy.") But observational science can still create theories which
can be verified or falsified by examining the data.
Maybe an example of how *not* to do it will help. The current economic
fashion is unregenerate Reaganism: government BAD, corporations GOOD.
Academic carpetbaggers are criss-crossing Latin America and Eastern Europe,
freely dispensing schemes and promises. Their self-confidence is entirely
unsupported by hard experience (no one knows how to create development or
reverse Communism). Their ideology is also carefully formulated so as to be
immune to possible failure: if their program causes economic collapse, that
doesn't mean the theory is wrong, only that an "austerity program" is needed.
The history of Communism itself offers a similar sorry story-- an economic
program based on armchair theorizing, and well-armed with clever techniques
to dismiss inconvenient facts or even complete practical failure.
(Just to be clear, feminism hasn't come anywhere near having methodological
failures of this magnitude. I am only addressing the idea that sociological
theories don't have to be falsifiable.)
>God, do I have to? >sigh< "Sexism is the sex-based assignment of roles beyond
>those absolutely required by biological reality to men and women, and, by
>extension, the set of techniques, conscious, unconscious, active, and passive,
>used to maintain those assignments." How's that for a working definition?
Fine, tho' I wasn't asking for one. I was pointing out that it could be
a complicated matter to evaluate the amount of sexism in different eras;
and that sexism sometimes *increases* in a particular area. (And I just
thought of another instance: Henry VIII's closing of the monastic houses--
eliminating an important class of female-run institutions. There's a
great thesis topic for somebody.)
> Given that you don't accept the [not exactly conspiracy-based]
> feminist theory I'm blathering about here, which has some pretty
> clear implications in terms of what action is required of people,
> including men, who would set things right -- given that you
> _don't_ accept that theory, what general strategies would _your_
> theory recommend for challenging the [sexist, racist, etc.]
> status quo?
Nothing that would surprise you. Eliminate legal barriers based on
prejudice; construct legal defenses against it. Use the media to highlight
the moral and economic costs of prejudice. Change methods of education
that reinforce it. Use the economic power of the oppressed sex/race/class
to support its own cultural and economic life, to demand inclusion in
the larger society in both areas, and to increase the costs of inertia.
Educate the oppressed group itself to combat self-prejudice and patterns
which reinforce the oppression. Cultivate rich philanthropists. Network.
Build health clinics, shelters, or whatever else the group needs.
Become lawyers, teachers, actors, comics, and filmmakers.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
> Point taken, but I don't recall people such as Conan Doyle, Verne,
>et al., as being considered Canon.
Well, they're both certainly taught in college courses. They're probably still
a bit marginal because, though not genre writers themselves (being as they
predate the fragmenting of prose fiction into real genres), they lie,
respectively, at the roots of the mystery and SF genres, which, though
gradually being accepted back into the "fold," are still viewed with a great
deal of suspicion and the hairy eyeball and phenomena by the literary Est.
>Another poster covered them as being
>"collective conscious" -- maybe not respected as Litteratchoor but boy
>are they remembered.
Doyle, yes. Verne? If you ask the average woman on the street she may have
heard of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA or AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS. A
better example on all counts would be Edgar Rice Burroughs, who by any
reasonable standard of judgement was a simply _wretched_ writer, but who created
one of the three characters recognized anywhere in the world (the other two are
Mickey Mouse and Superman), Tarzan.
(It would be interesting to research why Tarzan, and not his better-written
predecessor Mowgli, has become the generic image of the beast-man.)
> In terms of numbers of books read per year, I'd venture to bet that
>these Collective Conscious type books beat the PANTS off the "Canon" without
>even working up a sweat, especially if you eliminate those of the Canon which
>are read because someone is forced to read it. (I'd be willing to bet that
>Sherlock Holmes alone beats out most of the Canon combined).
Naaah. You underestimate how many undergraduates are forced to read IVANHOE
every year. . . (Or is Wat Scott currently out of fashion? I hope so!)
Go into a chain bookstore, the kind where books are really treated as
_commodities_ and if it doesn't sell they don't carry it. Look at the selection
of "classics," and don't forget, whether or not they have a separate "classics"
or "literature" section, to look in the "fiction" section.
Those books are there for a _reason_: They sell.
Not like current bestsellers, but steadily, year in and year out. . .
> they're both ... oh, all right. Point taken; I'd rather be Shakespeare.
>However, Shakespeare was writing plays basically for cash, as far as I
>recall, so I'd say King could be just as likely to be "Shakespeare" 500
>years from now as anyone else. He certainly has a head start on recognition.
So did Bulwer-Lytton in his day. But who today even remembers where Bovril
gets its name?
>Besides, King is scarier! I could mug people in alleys for their cash
>without even THREATENING them with his face. :)
Obviously you've never met Stevie. It takes a _lot_ of makeup and careful
lighting to make him look spooky on those AmEx commercials or the back of his
books. When he has his beard, he looks like a huggybear; without it, he looks
like an aging nerd. (For a better example of what he looks like look at the
back of the hardcover of, I think it's, CHRISTINE, the one where he's playing
the guitar.)
> Point taken. Very good. However, I'd say that means that the standards
>of the Canon should be raised. Junk some of the losing men! (Golding comes
>instantly to mind).
Do you mean Golding or Goldman?
I assume you mean Golding, as in LORD OF THE FLIES -- and I have to disagree
strenuously; that book gave me the heebyjeebies for _weeks_. That's good
writing, that is.
> "He's fighting Fafnir. FAFNIR. Remember Fafnir? Giant? Built
>Valhalla? Well, he's a dragon now, don't ask ME why..."
My favorite quote from the Wagner summary: "Siegfried is very tall. . .
and very strong. . . and very handsome. . . and very stupid. He's a
regular Little Abner type."
James Davis Nicoll
>of the Canon should be raised. Junk some of the losing men! (Golding comes
>instantly to mind).
I'm a bit unclear why you dislike Golding. Pray, share your insight
with the rest of us...
James Nicoll
Patricia Evans
>>Valhalla? Well, he's a dragon now, don't ask ME why..."
>
>My favorite quote from the Wagner summary: "Siegfried is very tall. . .
>and very strong. . . and very handsome. . . and very stupid. He's a
>regular Little Abner type."
>
>
Where could I get hold of this Wagner summary? It sounds hilarious.
A source for the G&S spoof would also be appreciated. Does anyone
know where to find them?
Patricia Evans
pev...@sanjuan.uvic.ca
Ryk E Spoor
> I'm a bit unclear why you dislike Golding. Pray, share your insight
>with the rest of us...
Golding, to me, is a person who has a good grasp of imagery and a
good command of language. His most (in?) famous work, LotF, bothers me
not because of the imagery but because I don't believe a word he's writing.
His approach to the subject starts from assumptions I don't buy and proceeds
on a course I don't believe.
Wilful suspension of disbelief is one thing, but he was ostensibly
using relatively "real" people.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Mike Godwin
>>Go to a bookstore and count
>>Fantasy 50% women
>>SF 30% women
>>Misteries 30% women
>>Romances 95% women
>>mainstream 40% women
>>
>>women are still close to half of the novels published
The figures on romance writers are suspect. Women tend not to buy romances
by male authors, so male romance writers use female pseudonyms.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, |"Humanoids are the galaxy's way of trying to get rid
mnem...@eff.org | of all that alcohol."
(617) 864-0665 |
EFF, Cambridge | --Iain Banks
Graham Wills
>> I'm a bit unclear why you dislike Golding. Pray, share your insight
>>with the rest of us...
>
> Golding, to me, is a person who has a good grasp of imagery and a
>good command of language. His most (in?) famous work, LotF, bothers me
>not because of the imagery but because I don't believe a word he's writing.
>His approach to the subject starts from assumptions I don't buy and proceeds
>on a course I don't believe.
LoTF is basically a skit on "The Coral Island" by ... Ballantine? (not sure)
If you've read the other book, you'll appreciate LoTF a lot more.
-Graham Wills
TCD, Ireland
Lee Ballentine
>In article <1992May21.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>The point of this was, how many novels by women from this period have
>>survived and made "the Canon?" How many by men? Why the difference between
>>the proportion of those published and those which have survived?
> Not to argue the fact that male domination of the field was not due
>to unconscious bias -- I think it was. But just as an aside to the above...
> Why in the world would anyone CARE if they got into "The Canon"?
>Willy Shakespeare wasn't writing to get into The Canon. Dickens wasn't.
>Melville wasn't.
> Most of The Canon that I've read is bloody boring stuff. I'd rather be
>known as a Stephen King than as a William Golding or William Kennedy (Hm.
>Maybe if you're named William you have a better chance to be a Big Man?).
It seems to me that there are two issues here. Getting into the Canon
is an iffy/prejudicial/hazardous prospect the author has no control
over. In fact, the author probably won't know whether she made it
in during her lifetime.
Of more concern to most authors is whether they will be allowed into
the literary marketplace. I.e., into the bookstore. It's entirely
possible that in 1992, the gender of the name that appears in the
"author" field on the book's cover doesn't have much to do with the
book's success in the marketplace. Certainly the necessity for a woman
to write under a male nom-de-plume is gone (in English at least, maybe
woman writing in Arabic would have a different story to tell)
However, the "market positioning" of a book by its publisher through such
tools as cover art, whether or not to push the book with promotional
tools such as high-exposure placement near bookstore cash registers,
in a cardboard "dump" by the door, etc..., all these factors will have
a big impact on the author's ability to make a living.
to make a living.
There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
readers.
Similar ad-hoc rules apply to gay and other themes which might
otherwise appear on covers. It's an interesting exercise to look
at the depiction of women on s-f and fantasy book covers.
So, in a way, we come back to content again. The gender of the author
is less important--what she has to say about gender, and the way those
statements are converted into marketability, are more important.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Lee Ballentine
>In article <leebal.706491357@teal> lee...@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine) writes:
>>As any novelist will tell you, publication is the least of it. That's
>>the beginning of the story. Getting someone to notice the book once
>>it's published is the real challenge.
>I don't want to hear this. I've written an sf novel myself, and don't feel
>up to worrying about the travails that would follow the improbable event
>of publication...
No writer wants to hear this but they all should. When you have a
contract, take a look at a book titled THE WRITER'S GUIDE TO SELF-PROMOTION
AND PUBLICITY by Elane Feldman (Writer's Digest Books 1990). It has
a non-fiction-writer's focus but is still a trove of useful information,
techniques, and trickery (they're all necessary!).
>>What interests me here is that on the one hand we have large numbers
>>of literary works created by women, presumably in the 18th AND 19th
>>centuries, and getting published, yet we have a critical climate which
>>disposes of them by inattention. Isn't it more charitable to those of
>>us who happen to be male to suppose that this inattention is more
>>unconscious than conscious?
>For one thing, what's so unconscious about the sexism these writers
>experienced? The criticisms Russ quotes show an active and overt sexism.
>For another-- no, I don't think it's more charitable. To accuse a man
>of conscious bigotry is to say he's a villain. To accuse him of unconscious
>bigotry is to say he's a villain and a hypocrite.
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, unconscious bigotry is at least
amenable to re-education. If the problem is conscious bigotry, then you
need to write-off a whole generation and start your education program with
the next one. This presents problems for a writer. You need your book to
be read now, not 30 years from now.
>Here we get into economic realities-- and good thing, too, because they're
>more tractable. Chain bookstores aren't going to stock loads of 18C women's
>literature out of solidarity with feminism. But they'll stock it if it sells.
Close, but slightly off. They will stock it if they think it will sell.
In other words, they will stock it if:
(1) It's published by a publisher whose books have sold well,
whose terms to the chain bookstores are most attractive, and who
promotes the book with hefty allowances.
(2) It's written by an author whose books have sold well.
(3) It has the name of an author whose books have sold well
on the cover ("... in the CLICHE universe of FAMOUS BIGNAME...") etc.
Even then, the book had better sell aggressively within days of hitting
the shelves. A book has a window of sales opportunity that closes forever
within a few weeks in the chains. If it doesn't "perform" within days,
there won't be a reorder, and witinn a few weeks they'll be ripping the
cover off to return to the publisher for a refund (if it's a paperback).
The book, sans cover, will become landfill. One enterprising bookstore
in the frozen north uses them for fuel in a woodburning stove.
>Fruitful approaches would seem to include--
>--get those idiotic tax laws that discourage keeping books in print changed
>--make the books available (the folks behind Virago have the right idea)
>--concerned citizens should make it a point to buy these books rather than
> using the library; patronize the stores that sell them; avoid the stores
> that do not.
>--find and publicize really good books which were neglected for reasons of
> sexism; people are much more receptive to trying out a good book than
> they are to being called bigots.
>
>The same applies to people who want a better selection of sf, I think.
>Take your business to the stores with a really good selection, even if
>they're a bit farther out of the way.
Bravo. Yes, all of the above. Unfortunately, retail bookselling in America
is still a small industry. Total sales of books in bookstores will be
under $10 billion/year this year. Compared to other industries (cable TV?)
the lobbying clout of the publishing industry as a whole is minimal.
Indeed, we're the "bad guys" to other segments of the population with
far more political clout. Like the Religious Right--who want to make
the bookstore owner legally liable if someone buys a book in his store
and then goes out and does crimes.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Lee Ballentine
>In article <206...@unix.cis.pitt.edu> seaw...@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
>> Point taken, but I don't recall people such as Conan Doyle, Verne,
>>et al., as being considered Canon.
>Well, they're both certainly taught in college courses. They're probably still
>a bit marginal because, though not genre writers themselves (being as they
>predate the fragmenting of prose fiction into real genres), they lie,
>respectively, at the roots of the mystery and SF genres, which, though
>gradually being accepted back into the "fold," are still viewed with a great
>deal of suspicion and the hairy eyeball and phenomena by the literary Est.
.
.
.
>> In terms of numbers of books read per year, I'd venture to bet that
>>these Collective Conscious type books beat the PANTS off the "Canon" without
>>even working up a sweat, especially if you eliminate those of the Canon which
>>are read because someone is forced to read it. (I'd be willing to bet that
>>Sherlock Holmes alone beats out most of the Canon combined).
>Naaah. You underestimate how many undergraduates are forced to read IVANHOE
>every year. . . (Or is Wat Scott currently out of fashion? I hope so!)
In fact, text/academic publishing tends to be a more stable, and often a more
lucrative branch of publishing than Trade (publishing books which are
sold in ordinary bookstores to the general public).
It's simply because the total available market (TAM for the MBAs)
is so much more amenable to calculation. We know how many college freshman
will be buying books next year. We know how many books to print and
what to charge for them, since we know how many ENGLISH 101 courses
will be teaching IVANHOE (or whatever).
The Canon will always be in print. Another benefit--most books published
before about 1905 are free of copyright this year. Translation: No nasty
author checking the proofs to see if the typesetter goofed, no annoying
agents bugging the publisher for an accounting of royalties, and no
royalties! Hurray for the Canon! One place an honest publisher can
make a buck.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
System Smof
initials instead of their full names on the covers of their books. (Blame
that practice on the marketing drones).
____________________________________________________________________
/ | | \
|SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |"The World's First Online | __|__ |
| Proline: shiva@pro-smof | Science Fiction Convention"| \_|_/ |
| Internet: wixer!pro-lep!pro-smof!sh...@cs.utexas.edu | | |
\________________________________|____________________________|______/
Brad Templeton
>The figures on romance writers are suspect. Women tend not to buy romances
>by male authors, so male romance writers use female pseudonyms.
I wonder if this is even true. I once heard, straight from the mouth of
the owner of Harlequin romances, that they are effectively almost all
written by women, and that some men *try* to submit with women's names,
but that it is usually pretty easy to detect and the fiction is not
the sort they want.
That a good male writer could write a Harlequin I don't doubt. However,
the truly good writers never attempt to do so. He called Harlequins the
"Coca-Cola of Literature" and said there was a market for coke just as there
was a market for fine wine. However, this doesn't alter the fact that
the writers who work in the market are, with a few exceptions, not great
or even very good writers.
Anyway, he could have just said this to perpetuate the myth. However, it
was in private conversation, not a public address.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
By learning and courtesy
> In article <1992May24.0...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>The figures on romance writers are suspect. Women tend not to buy romances
>>by male authors, so male romance writers use female pseudonyms.
>
> I wonder if this is even true.
It is true. I was fortunate to hear a splendid talk by one half of the
partnership who publish under the name "Jessica Stirling". It was as part of
a series of talks on current Scottish writing and culture. He was most
interesting on the problems of matching the reality of life in the historical
period with the book version of life at that time. True reality is not
suitable for romantic fiction.
I believe that writing in this form often resembles sonnet writing -
a strict format used by many - resulting in a wide variety of quality in the
end product.
I concede product.
Ann
Jim Mann
> teach *Villette* [two "L"s, guys, it's a French noun] in 1971, there
> was not one edition in print in the United States. You can't discuss
> a book in class if the students can't find a copy to read. You can't
> even recommend a book to your friends if they can't find a copy --
> vide the despairing discussions of Sturgeon elsewhere in this group.
It IS in print now, and not just from a small publisher. It is
part of the Signet Classics line, and is even available in
Waldens (I saw a copy there last week).
--
Jim Mann
jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Stratus Computer
Alfvaen
>Quotes are from the 1983 University of Texas Press edition of HOW TO
SUPPRESS
>WOMEN'S WRITING by Joanna Russ, and are used without permission. . .:
> Although women wrote one-half to two-thirds of the novels published in
English
> in the eighteenth century and women dominate certain fields such as the
> detective story or the modern Gothic (in popularity if not in numbers),
> undoubtedly one response to _Women_can't_write_ is not to. . . In summer
> writing workshops I've attended in science fiction, women have averaged 20
> percent or fewer of the total number of students. . .Figures for BOOKS IN
PRINT
> and similar sources would be interesting, but as far as I know, no one has
done
> the research. [p97]
I find this particular quote interesting. The SF writing workshops I've
attended have all been largely comprised of women, from 60-80% by my guess.
I am including the instructor, Candas Jane Dorsey(fine Canadian SF writer,
if you can find any of her stuff, collection Machine Sex And Other Stories,
end plug), and the woman who hosted this series of workshops at her guest
ranch near Jasper, Alberta.
My current SF writer's group in Edmonton consists largely of women(well,
just over 50%). I don't have real data, but I suspect that at least one of
the other major groups in town is largely female as well. Is this just a
localized phenomenon? Or is Russ speaking of an earlier era?
> I can't die yet -- I haven't seen THE JOLSON STORY!
> --Larry Fine
Wasn't he a Stooge?
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
> My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
> Professional Development, or anyone else.
> But I'm willing to share.
--
---Alfvaen(a.k.a. Aaron V. Humphrey)
Canadian Network For Space Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Current Album--Mannheim Steamroller:Fresh Aire VI
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In article <1992May22.1...@apollo.hp.com> bet...@apollo.hp.com
>(Betsy Perry) writes:
>> Joanna Russ (remember her?) points out that when she wanted to
>> teach *Villette* [two "L"s, guys, it's a French noun] in 1971, there
>It IS in print now, and not just from a small publisher.
Since I'm in the "posting samples" mode here, let me toss in two quotations
from VILETTE, such as imio might show _why_ sexism rather than "quality"
might be behind JANE EYRE being the only Bronte book taught (or in print)
until recently. These aren't selections I've ravaged the book looking for;
they're from within four pages of each other, in my edition, in chapter 8
("Madame Beck"):
. . . looking up at Madame, I saw in her countenance a
something that made me think twice ere I decided. At that
instant she did not wear a woman's aspect, but rather a
man's. Power of a particular kind strongly limned itself
in all her traits, and that power was not _my_ kind of
power: neither sympathy, nor congeniality, nor submission,
were the emotions it awakened. I stood -- not soothed, nor
won, nor overwhelmed. It seemed as if a challenge of
strength between opposing gifts was given, and I suddenly
felt all the dishonour of my diffidence -- all the
pusillanimity of my slackness to aspire.
. . . From that day I ceased to be nursery governess, and
became English teacher. Madame raised my salary; but she
got thrice the work out of me she had extracted from Mr
Wilson, at half the expense.
Both of these are "dangerous" perceptions, in the sense that they articulate
clearly the problems faced by a single woman in the patriarchal society of
Bronte's time. The first states clearly that women are not normally perceived
as possessing power; the second, that a woman must do more work for less pay in
"the same" job. What makes these perceptions "dangerous" is not that they are
particularly epochal in their insight into what nobody knew -- they certainly
aren't today, and they really weren't in Bronte's time.
What makes them "dangerous" is that they _are_ clearly articulated. For decent
men in a patriarchal society, to perceive these things is to perceive their own
unfair advantages; it is to call into question the validity of their own
successes and social position.
VILETTE is, in fact, full of such "dangerous" perceptions. . . and so it is
no particular surprise that VILETTE was "suppressed."
To reiterate: As I understand it, "suppression," in Russ's book, is being
used ambivalently; both in the sense of outside censorship, and in the sense
of the psychological censorship mechanism which makes things one "can't" look
at disappear from one's consciousness. I believe that books like VILETTE have
typically been "suppressed" in the second sense.
I can't die yet -- I haven't seen THE JOLSON STORY!
--Larry Fine
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
Mike Rogers
>There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
>several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
>of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
>perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
>cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
>readers.
Does that explain why Sam Delany is shown on the front of 'Motion of Light in
Water' in a kind of off-green, and on the back as a negative :-) ?
--
Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,##EveryoneHasTheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpressio
TCD,EIRE. <mi...@maths.tcd.ie>##nThisRightIncludesFreedomToHoldOpinionsWithoutInt
###############################erferenceAndToSeekReceiveAndImpartInformationAndI
deasThroughAnyMediaAndRegardlessOfFrontiers...#10 UN Declaration of Human Rights
Arrowsmith
>In article <leebal.706802497@teal>, lee...@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine) wrote:
>>There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
>>several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
>>of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
>>perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
>>cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
>>readers.
>
>Does that explain why Sam Delany is shown on the front of 'Motion of Light in
>Water' in a kind of off-green, and on the back as a negative :-) ?
>
that simple. Having said that, published photos of Delany seem to be
somewhat rare -- my usual reference book has photos of just about every
author included, the only pictures which are drawings are Jules Verne
and Delany.
I've certainly seen a case where one of the people depicted on the cover
had everyone who had read the book going "Yeah, I recognise who it's
supposed to be, but isn't she said to be _black_?"
--
\S "I ride tandem with the random
SA...@phx.cam.ac.uk "Things don't turn out the way I plan them
sarr...@nyx.cs.du.edu "In the humdrum"
and elsewhere.... --Peter Gabriel
Eric S. Raymond
>What makes them "dangerous" is that they _are_ clearly articulated. For decent
>men in a patriarchal society, to perceive these things is to perceive their
>own unfair advantages; it is to call into question the validity of their own
>successes and social position.
Cripes...
I was going to stay out of this, but I find I can't let a fashionable
fatuousness of this magnitude go by unchallenged.
I am a `decent' man; pro-equality and all that. But I don't find the
perception that women have been unfairly denied power and underpaid at *all*
threatening, nor do I feel that it invalidates my own success and
position in the slightest degree. You see, *I didn't do it!*
I am only accountable for *my* treatment of women. I am *not* accountable
for other mens' treatment of women. To claim that I am is sexist, as one can
easily show by reversing the gender in the above. If a woman treats me badly,
it would be sexist for me to demand compensation from all women. They didn't
do it!
It's my responsibility to treat every human being fairly and equally, and I
take considerable pains to do so. And I go further than that; for example,
I routinely confront people who speak sexist put-downs in my presence. But *I*
never chose to discriminate against women, so I don't feel any requirement to
give up anything that I have or am to compensate them. The guilt you're
assuming simply doesn't exist for me. Thus I don't need to suppress
books like _Villette_, and have a hard time believe anyone else does, either.
Yes, this means I've accepted some results of a historical advantage. Life
is like that. I also have a `historical advantage' because both my parents
went to college; would you have me lobotomize myself to `compensate' people
less fortunate?
The whole line of argument that claims _Villette_ and other feminist literature
has been "suppressed" because it's "threatening" looks completely bogus to me;
it looks like another manifestation of the victimology plague, an attempt to
extort with guilt and political pressure recognition the book wasn't able to
win on its own merits.
--
Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Evelyn C. Leeper
> In article <33...@transfer.stratus.com> jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
> >In article <1992May22.1...@apollo.hp.com> bet...@apollo.hp.com
> >(Betsy Perry) writes:
> >> Joanna Russ (remember her?) points out that when she wanted to
> >> teach *Villette* [two "L"s, guys, it's a French noun] in 1971, there
> >> was not one edition in print in the United States...
>
> >It IS in print now, and not just from a small publisher.
Actually we're currently swimming in editions of VILLETTE; there are at
least a half dozen *mass-market* editions listed in BOOKS IN PRINT.
And the local "Little Professor" bookstore in Middletown NJ even had
a copy!
> might be behind JANE EYRE being the only Bronte book taught (or in print)
> until recently.
Surely you meant the "only *Charlotte* Bronte taught (or in print),"
since to the best of my knowledge WUTHERING HEIGHTS has been in print
continuously for a long time now.
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
-- Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
Mark Rosenfelder
>decent men in a patriarchal society, to perceive these things is to perceive
>their own unfair advantages; it is to call into question the validity of
>their own successes and social position.
>
>VILETTE is, in fact, full of such "dangerous" perceptions. . . and so it is
>no particular surprise that VILETTE was "suppressed."
To some extent you're right... readers often prefer the least challenging of
an author's works. But I think you greatly underestimate the thickness of
the stomach lining of the average reader.
Would a medieval work be considered dangerous if it suggested that wives
should control their husbands' property, that clerics slander women in their
books because they're old and impotent, that men's literature is biased
against women, that the aristocracy's claim to finer character was a pack
of lies, and that whole classes of priests are lecherous evil spirits?
None of that diminished the popularity of Chaucer's _Canterbury Tales_ or
the Wife of Bath's section in particular.
Milton's diatribes against monarchy didn't prevent his exaltation by the
English; the influence of Voltaire, Hume, Gibbon, and Rousseau was if anything
increased by their rejection of the church; Dickens' novels of protest are
no less popular than his comedies of manners; Ibsen and Shaw similarly made
a virtue of controversiality; Upton Sinclair's passionate arguments for
socialism were cheerfully taken as a complaint about the packing industry;
Vargas Llosa and Garcia Marquez are favorites of the very elites responsible
for the social conditions deplored in their works.
People will swallow, or ignore, or intellectually sympathize with, almost
any amount of condemnation of their own society, so long as it appears in
a story.
-
Discussing 19C literature, we are handicapped, often in ways we aren't even
aware of, by not living in the 19th century. What brings this to mind is
someone's reference a few days ago to Charlotte M. Yonge. I've never read
her books or even seen any of them. But I remember a reference to her works
in one of C.S. Lewis's essays; the context makes it clear that he had not
only read her books but expected his readers to be familiar with them too.
We cannot always judge an author's influence in her own time from the
reputation she has a hundred years later.
-
Just as an FYI-- _How to Suppress Women's Writing_ is still in print; I saw
a copy at Borders the other day. It was in the women's studies section,
rather than lit crit; in the right frame of mind this could itself be seen
as a trick of suppression.
refe...@bingaixa.cc.binghamton.edu
since to the best of my knowledge WUTHERING HEIGHTS has been in print
continuously for a long time now.
emily bronte wrote wuthering heights, not charlotte.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Would a medieval work be considered dangerous if it suggested that wives
>should control their husbands' property, that clerics slander women in their
>books because they're old and impotent, that men's literature is biased
>against women, that the aristocracy's claim to finer character was a pack
>of lies, and that whole classes of priests are lecherous evil spirits?
>None of that diminished the popularity of Chaucer's _Canterbury Tales_ or
>the Wife of Bath's section in particular.
No: but the Wife of Bath's Tale is taught as being funny (which, of course,
it is). When I read it for an English class in high school --we're talking
mid-'70s, here, for context, and in California -- the instructor described
the Wife as a character (which, again, she was) whose opinions were part of
the comedic effect: in short, the (female) instructor didn't take the Wife's
opinions seriously, and didn't think that either Chaucer or his medieval
audience did, either.
You don't have to make something disappear to silence it.
>Just as an FYI-- _How to Suppress Women's Writing_ is still in print; I saw
>a copy at Borders the other day. It was in the women's studies section,
>rather than lit crit; in the right frame of mind this could itself be seen
>as a trick of suppression.
*sigh*
Not really suppression as such -- just knowing their market.
Of course, the *effect* is the same.
Mark Rosenfelder
>No: but the Wife of Bath's Tale is taught as being funny (which, of course,
>it is). When I read it for an English class in high school --we're talking
>mid-'70s, here, for context, and in California -- the instructor described
>the Wife as a character (which, again, she was) whose opinions were part of
>the comedic effect: in short, the (female) instructor didn't take the Wife's
>opinions seriously, and didn't think that either Chaucer or his medieval
>audience did, either.
Well, I don't agree that the Wife of Bath is primarily a comic character.
I think the reader is intended to laugh with her rather than at her,
and that Chaucer, though he might not exactly share her opinions, respects
them more than those of her opponents (the anti-female clerics). And
the other characters and Chaucer himself say little but good things
about her.
Lee Ballentine
>In article <1992May28.1...@spss.com> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
.
.
.
>>Just as an FYI-- _How to Suppress Women's Writing_ is still in print; I saw
>>a copy at Borders the other day. It was in the women's studies section,
>>rather than lit crit; in the right frame of mind this could itself be seen
>>as a trick of suppression.
>*sigh*
>Not really suppression as such -- just knowing their market.
Or rather, knowing how to create a market. Many publishers put a
"subject" field on the back of a book to help booksellers decide
where to shelve something. It's instructive to look at this field
and see how often booksellers take the publisher's word for it.
The worst crime, in commercial publishing, is to be "neither fish
nor fowl." Hence P.K. Dick, in his lifetime, never had much luck
with his non-SF fiction. If it isn't immediately obvious what a
book is and where it fits in the scheme of things, publisher's
sales reps won't push the book because it simply requires too much
explanation. And the simple answer to every objection is: "X
doesn't sell [in our market]." Translation: "I'm on my break."
Or perhaps "This bookstore job doesn't pay me enough to make any
decisions that aren't in the handbook."
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Lee Ballentine
Maybe Chaucer was just writing in an era before lots of rules (like
standardized spelling and attitudes toward women) were codified into
literary/publishing practices. Remember that before the 19th century, a
writer had to please a patron, not a publisher, in order to get into
print.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Mark Rosenfelder
>Maybe Chaucer was just writing in an era before lots of rules (like
>standardized spelling and attitudes toward women) were codified into
>literary/publishing practices. Remember that before the 19th century, a
>writer had to please a patron, not a publisher, in order to get into
>print.
And in Chaucer's day, in order to get into print, you had to move to China. :)
Mike Rogers
>Or perhaps "This bookstore job doesn't pay me enough to make any
>decisions that aren't in the handbook."
At the bookstore where I work, the person in charge of 'Lit' won't let me put
Lessing's 'Canopus' series next to her other stuff. She also refuses to
countenance any incursions by Shepard, Disch, Dick, Russ, Cadigan, Stapledon,
Moorcock, etc. That's *anything* by them, even mainstream.
But in my SF section, I have managed to grab in Pynchon, Bangs, Thomas, Banks,
Sladek, Baudrillard and Acker, all of whom she wouldn't touch with a barge
pole. This section looks mucho wierd to a typical fen, but the stuff still
sells well. Then again, maybe it's my sadistic tendencies being assuaged every
time a Heinlein fan starts to read 'Empire of the Senseless'.
Lee Ballentine
>In article <leebal.707131106@teal>, lee...@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine) wrote:
>>Or perhaps "This bookstore job doesn't pay me enough to make any
>>decisions that aren't in the handbook."
>At the bookstore where I work, the person in charge of 'Lit' won't let me put
>Lessing's 'Canopus' series next to her other stuff. She also refuses to
>countenance any incursions by Shepard, Disch, Dick, Russ, Cadigan, Stapledon,
>Moorcock, etc. That's *anything* by them, even mainstream.
>But in my SF section, I have managed to grab in Pynchon, Bangs, Thomas, Banks,
Every once-in-awhile something happens on the CRT in front of me that makes
me stop and take a deep breath. Here we have a bookseller telling us that
Pynchon, D.M. Thomas, and Kathy Acker "sell well" when placed in the SF
section of a bookstore. I can tell you that this information goes against
every "conventional wisdom" in the book business. My suggestion, to this
poster, would be to expend this theme into an article and send it to one
of the book trade rags like AMERICAN BOOKSELLER. They had an article a few
years ago, written by someone at Guild Books in Chicago, to the effect
that literary magazines (things like PLOUGHSHARES, PARIS REVIEW, etc.)
actually make money in that store.
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
charles stross
In article <1992May21....@spss.com> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
> [ ... deleted ... ]
>Sorry for the length of this article. Hopefully the musical quotations at
>least were amusing.
>
>ObSF ref: anybody read Robert Graves' story of a future matriarchal utopia?
>I think it's called _North Wind Rising_; if it isn't, something else is.
Title: _Seven Days in New Crete_. But you got the author right, and
yes -- the musical invective _was_ amusing.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Stross
aka char...@scol.sco.com
``In one of my more lucid moments, I caught myself eating the television set.''
Mark Rosenfelder
>In article <1992May21....@spss.com> mark...@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>ObSF ref: anybody read Robert Graves' story of a future matriarchal utopia?
>>I think it's called _North Wind Rising_; if it isn't, something else is.
>
>Title: _Seven Days in New Crete_. But you got the author right, and
>yes -- the musical invective _was_ amusing.
No, it turns out I was thinking of _Watch the North Wind Rise_. It starts
with a 20C poet being fetched into the far future by witches-- is this
the same book you have?
charles stross
>>There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
>>several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
>>of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
>>perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
>>cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
>>readers.
>
>Does that explain why Sam Delany is shown on the front of 'Motion of Light in
>Water' in a kind of off-green, and on the back as a negative :-) ?
>--
Extending this to fiction ...
When Colin Greenland saw the cover of the US paperback edition
of _Take Back Plenty_ he was most unamused. As he explained, the US
publishers had commissioned a painting of the heroine of the novel
sitting in her space ship's flight deck. Nothing odd about _that_,
except that (a) the woman portrayed on the cover was wearing a
skin-tight something with two baloons stuffed on top of her
chest -- they can't have been breasts: she'd have needed medical
treatment -- and (b) her skin colour was, um, a bit too pale. Quite
obviously, someone in marketing had gotten to the painter.
What do _you_ think? Do implicit racism and sexism boost sales?
Discuss ...
Dani Zweig
>When Colin Greenland saw the cover of the US paperback edition
>....was, um, a bit too pale.
>What do _you_ think? Do implicit racism and sexism boost sales?
To turn the question around, is it racist for African Christians to
portray Christ as black?
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
J. E. Shum
In article <0__l7x...@netcom.com>, da...@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
> char...@sco.COM (charles stross):
> >When Colin Greenland saw the cover of the US paperback edition
> >of _Take Back Plenty_ he was most unamused. ...the heroine of the novel
> >....was, um, a bit too pale.
> >
> >What do _you_ think? Do implicit racism and sexism boost sales?
>
> To turn the question around, is it racist for African Christians to
> portray Christ as black?
Nope. Just inaccurate.
--
<j...@mitre.org>
Eric S. Raymond
> Golding, to me, is a person who has a good grasp of imagery and a
> good command of language. His most (in?) famous work, LotF, bothers me
> not because of the imagery but because I don't believe a word he's writing.
> His approach to the subject starts from assumptions I don't buy and proceeds
> on a course I don't believe.
Well put, but here's a try at an even pithier summation:
I dislike Golding because he's one of the 20th century's great mythmakers of
authoritarianism, something like an inverse of George Orwell. The bottom line
of LOTF is that people can't be trusted to control their own lives without
degenerating into violence-drunk savages --- they have to be *controlled*.
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>Well put, but here's a try at an even pithier summation:
>I dislike Golding because he's one of the 20th century's great mythmakers of
>authoritarianism, something like an inverse of George Orwell. The bottom line
>of LOTF is that people can't be trusted to control their own lives without
>degenerating into violence-drunk savages --- they have to be *controlled*.
It sounds like you missed the irony in the final scene. The "authority
figure" who rescues the kids is no better than they are -- he's a soldier
in a war, engaged in exactly the same sort of savagery as the kids, only
with a slightly more civilized veneer.
The "bottom line" of *Lord of the Flies* is that civilization is never
more than skin-deep--that human beings *can't* be controlled. This is
hardly a ringing endorsement for authoritarianism.
--
"Tell me, who *hasn't* felt close to the edge and down by the river"
soren f petersen : i AM NOT : --Andy Whitman
spet...@peruvian.utah.edu : THE university OF utah :
"How could I dance with another/When I saw him standing there" --Tiffany
Christopher Davis
Mike> But in my SF section, I have managed to grab in Pynchon, Bangs,
Mike> Thomas, Banks, Sladek, Baudrillard and Acker, all of whom she
Mike> wouldn't touch with a barge pole. This section looks mucho wierd
Mike> to a typical fen, but the stuff still sells well.
My 'nearby' specialty SF bookstore is where I got my current copies of,
among other things, the Gardner _Annotated Alice_, a collection of Swift
(_Gulliver's Travels_ & "A Modest Proposal" & more), Sladek's _The
M\"uller-Fokker Effect_, and, of course, _Locus_.
Quite a bit of good stuff there, and mind-candy for plane flights [Star
Trek #86: Scotty Saves the Ship Again] too. A good mix, IMHO.
--
Christopher Davis * c...@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
Samizdata isn't that different from Samizdat. -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>In article <1992May27.2...@maths.tcd.ie> mi...@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes:
>>In article <leebal.706802497@teal>, lee...@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine) wrote:
>>>There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
>>>several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
>>>of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
>>>perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
>>>cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
>>>readers.
>>
>>Does that explain why Sam Delany is shown on the front of 'Motion of Light in
>>Water' in a kind of off-green, and on the back as a negative :-) ?
>>--
>Extending this to fiction ...
>
>When Colin Greenland saw the cover of the US paperback edition
>of _Take Back Plenty_ he was most unamused. As he explained, the US
>publishers had commissioned a painting of the heroine of the novel
>sitting in her space ship's flight deck. Nothing odd about _that_,
>except that (a) the woman portrayed on the cover was wearing a
>skin-tight something with two baloons stuffed on top of her
>chest -- they can't have been breasts: she'd have needed medical
>treatment -- and (b) her skin colour was, um, a bit too pale. Quite
>obviously, someone in marketing had gotten to the painter.
>
>What do _you_ think? Do implicit racism and sexism boost sales?
I don't know whether implicit racism and sexism boost sales, but I was _not_
pleased to see that _Friday_'s paperback cover portrayed her as a blue-eyed
blonde when it's clear from the book that she's probably got medium-to-light
brown skin and dark hair and eyes.
Nancy Lebovitz
button catalogue availible by email (170K)
na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu
P.S. Has anyone been following that discussion in sci.anthropology about
race being an illusion?
Mark Rosenfelder
For a believer, the important thing about the Incarnation is God becoming
a human being, not God becoming a 1st century Jew. I think the Africans are
right to depict Christ as someone like themselves.
Iain McCord
: In article <0__l7x...@netcom.com>, da...@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
: > To turn the question around, is it racist for African Christians to
: > portray Christ as black?
:
: Nope. Just inaccurate.
Yup , Jesus was Jewish, and lived in Judea. He'd have been dark skinned
and semitic.
--
~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord ~~~~/()\~~~~ Mon Jun 8 20:03:09 WET DST 1992
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In article <0__l7x...@netcom.com>, da...@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>> To turn the question around, is it racist for African Christians to
>> portray Christ as black?
>
>Nope. Just inaccurate.
Accurate, schmaccurate.
When's the last time you looked at religious art?
How many of the paintings or statues of Christ you've seen. . . looked
Jewish?
It's really no more "inaccurate" to depict him as an African than as an
Anglo. . .
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the moions of
atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs
are true. . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain
to be composed of atoms.
--J.B.S. Haldane
Lee Ballentine
>I don't know whether implicit racism and sexism boost sales, but I was _not_
>pleased to see that _Friday_'s paperback cover portrayed her as a blue-eyed
>blonde when it's clear from the book that she's probably got medium-to-light
>brown skin and dark hair and eyes.
This comment reminded me of a letter I wrote to the editors of the
NEW YORK REVIEW OF SCIENCE FICTION awhile back... which they didn't find
room to print (it's a slender mag). It has mostly to do with the flap
among the Science Fiction Writers of America regarding membership
qualifications for the group. It struck me that arguing about who
ought to be recognized as a "real" SF writer at a time when the
publishing industry and the field of SF as a whole are pretty generally
in a shambles, is absurd.
My letter attempts to be entertaining and thoughtful at the same time.
I understand why NYRSF didn't find space for it, but maybe someone out
there will find it interesting.
cut here
----------------------------------
New York Review of Science Fiction 12/11/91
Box 78
Pleasantville NY 10570
Dear NYRSF:
The Science Fiction Writers of America have (as my aunt Edith
used to say) their knickers all-in-a-twist. Some in the hierarchy
of exclusion think the organization is insufficiently exclusive.
So--like the Communist Party in the 20s, SFWA proposes to purge
its ranks of poets, anarchists, and other undesirables.
The reasons are economical, naturally. "Established" writers have
seen their earnings diminished by the bad economy, changes in
bookselling, and consolidation of publishing houses. Adding
insult to injury, they've watched as newer writers, often women,
have edged into SFWA suites, onto panels, and worst, into the
Nebulas. The old guard are less likely than ever before to read
their own names in those arcane lists. Never mind that awards
rarely betoken big sales in the malls like they're supposed to.
Naw (I can hear some say)--it's "soft" SF that's wrecked the
genre--it's THOSE writers (and sympathisers) we need to throw out
of the clubhouse. Or it's Fantasy that is the problem. Real SF
readers can't find the product, there's too much "noise" in the
racks. Well--actually, when books are commodities, it's a breeze
to find books with the right stuff: Cover art. How else would
reps and buyers know, since they don't read? It's a given that
frightful weapons will appear on the cover. A humongous evolution
of the bazooka now signifies hard SF--astronomy has faded into
the background. Big gun = SF, Big blade = Fantasy.
Images of women help too. Big breasts in sleek rubber sheathsuit
= SF, big breasts in diaphonous gown = Fantasy. Sheathsuit
hefting the bazooka? A sure sign of "soft" SF. Accompanied, of
course, by breast reduction--we all know that aggressive women
wear smaller brassieres. But diaphonous gowns and bazookas never
mix. That would be "crossover"-- which might mean the hope of big
sales for a spy novel that housewives will buy--but is anathema
in the world of Science Fiction (note caps), where genre
confusion is a cardinal sin.
Apart from cover themes, does anyone think there's a difference
between contemporary SF and Fantasy? Sales-per-square-foot are
about the same. And "content" is less important than ever before.
Rather, it matters only to a dwindling few--some (by no means
all) writers, the odd bookstore, and some lingering (vulnerable)
editors. See Cristina Sedgewick's "The Fork in the Road: Can
Science Fiction Survive in Postmodern, Megacorporate America?"
(SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES #18, 1991) and Ted Solotaroff's "The
Paperbacking of Publishing," (THE NATION, 10/7/91).
All this makes the SFWA flap all that much more curious to an
observer. In America, books are commodities, like kid's cereals
in supermarkets. This is not a prediction but historical fact--
for YEARS publishers have PAID to get that rubber suit (with or
without bazooka) under your nose at Dalton's point-of-sale, just
like Big Food Inc. pays to get Trix on the endcap at Safeway
where your kid can reach it. Both products might even be part of
the same conglomerate basket--only the accountants know for sure.
So rather than define SF so as to throw out the upstarts, maybe
SFWA should re-examine its name. How about Science Fiction
Producers of America? Science Fiction Developers? Henry Miller
made the point when he said (bad paraphrase) that an artist in
America is treated no better than a dog. The reason is simple.
The activities that matter in our society, that earn respect, are
the ones that most easily convert into-and-out-of-dollars. And
artistry is not easy to quantify.
Literature here is played like a professional sport, say, golf.
From among a pool of eager contenders, only a few will make the
cut. Those on the tour are ranked by their dollar earnings
through the year. So-and-so is the top money maker this year.
Nothing succeeds like success. But doesn't better writing sell
more books? The answer seems to be: Not if the powers-that-be
can help it.
So here is my program for SFWA to become an effective
organization for its membership:
First, admit members on the basis of dollar sales--gamewriters,
scriptwriters, and novelists on an equal basis. If anyone goes
two years without a big advance, throw the bastard out.
Next, raise the membership fees. Successful SF product developers
ought to be able to afford a couple of thousand bucks a year,
anyway. Build-up the war chest.
Hire a staff of lawyers to sue publishers and agents. Get a
lobbyist in Washington hammering at the anti-trust implications
of all those mergers. How can an honest product developer up his
advance without a decent auction market?
Maybe a national ad campaign--get book ads and book-awareness
into kiddie prime-time instead of abandoning the field to action
figures and cereal. Literacy is good for business. Maybe
Barbara Bush in a sheathsuit?
Most important, throw out those poets. They're not making any
money for heaven's sake. They're likely to vote literary. And
hurry--they're taking up valuable couch space in the SFWA suite.
Lee Ballentine
----------------
end of letter
Lee Ballentine
pro...@csn.org
Bonita Kale
References: <1992Jun8.2...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>
In a previous article, djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) says:
>In article <1992Jun6.0...@linus.mitre.org> j...@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
>>In article <0__l7x...@netcom.com>, da...@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>>> To turn the question around, is it racist for African Christians to
>>> portray Christ as black?
>>
>>Nope. Just inaccurate.
>
>Accurate, schmaccurate.
>
>When's the last time you looked at religious art?
>
>How many of the paintings or statues of Christ you've seen. . . looked
>Jewish?
>
>It's really no more "inaccurate" to depict him as an African than as an
>Anglo. . .
Depends on your purpose, I guess. If you want to emphasize his humanity,
make him whatever color you like. If you want accurate, be accurate.
The big problem is that there have been so many blond, blue-eyed Jesuses
and Marys that a lot of people think he really did look like that! (I
think they think Mary used a bottle, too.)
Therefore, another Jesus like that might contribute to the problem.
That's why I personally prefer that if you make him white, you make him
accurately white--Semitic, that is.
But if you make him any other color, there's less danger of confusing
symbol with fact, and you can do what you will--wrap him in an Indian
blanket, lay him on a grass mat, put him in a dresser drawer in a
tenament--whatever. Come to think of it, the dresser drawer would work for
a blond Jesus too.
There are still picture books coming out that show Bethlehem peopled with
WASPs. But -some- of the newer ones are endearingly realistic--Mary even
looks pregnant!
Has anyone noticed that in lots of the movies, Peter looks more like Jesus
than Jesus does?
Bonita Kale
refe...@bingaixa.cc.binghamton.edu
|>
|> In article <1992May27.2...@maths.tcd.ie> mi...@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) writes:
|> >In article <leebal.706802497@teal>, lee...@teal.csn.org (Lee Ballentine) wrote:
|> >>There's an ongoing controversy it publishing over the appearance of
|> >>several noted black writers, the appearance of a black face on the cover
|> >>of a book, even if it depicts a lead character who is black, tends to be
|> >>perceived as a negative by publishers--which means that the graphical
|> >>cue "here's a book that includes a black character" is not available to
|> >>readers.
|> >
|> >Does that explain why Sam Delany is shown on the front of 'Motion of Light in
|> >Water' in a kind of off-green, and on the back as a negative :-) ?
|> >--
|>
|> Extending this to fiction ...
|>
|> When Colin Greenland saw the cover of the US paperback edition
|> of _Take Back Plenty_ he was most unamused. As he explained, the US
|> publishers had commissioned a painting of the heroine of the novel
|> sitting in her space ship's flight deck. Nothing odd about _that_,
|> except that (a) the woman portrayed on the cover was wearing a
|> skin-tight something with two baloons stuffed on top of her
|> chest -- they can't have been breasts: she'd have needed medical
|> treatment -- and (b) her skin colour was, um, a bit too pale. Quite
|> obviously, someone in marketing had gotten to the painter.
|>
|> What do _you_ think? Do implicit racism and sexism boost sales?
|>
women should be pictured in certain ways, either because of an attempt to attract
a certain type of customer for their products, or because they are reflecting a
wider societal bias, or both. i mean, take a look at most women on covers of
sci-fi novels and in comics/graphic novels. they look like they are carrying
around size 40F chests with no visible means of support. (i must admit, however,
this has gotten a little better in some comics lately. a little better, not a lot.)
does racism boost sales? well, i think that the prevalent myth believed by many
in the industry is that since persons of color don't buy books, (or if they do,
they don't buy very many), the people who *do* buy wouldn't if they saw a
non-white face on the cover,(because they would assume that it is a "black"
book, or a "hispanic" book, etc..)
Deb Schwartz
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that _Seven Days in New Crete_ is the same
book as _Watch the North Wind Rise_, just a later re-issue with a new cover
and title.
--
Debbie Schwartz // d...@voodoo.boeing.com // or uunet!bcstec!voodoo!das
Eric S. Raymond
> The "bottom line" of *Lord of the Flies* is that civilization is never
> more than skin-deep--that human beings *can't* be controlled. This is
> hardly a ringing endorsement for authoritarianism.
Think again. The implication --- both ways --- is that only discipline (in
the second case *military* discipline) maintains the veneer.
soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty
>In <1992Jun5.2...@hellgate.utah.edu> soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty wrote:
>> The "bottom line" of *Lord of the Flies* is that civilization is never
>> more than skin-deep--that human beings *can't* be controlled. This is
>> hardly a ringing endorsement for authoritarianism.
>Think again. The implication --- both ways --- is that only discipline (in
>the second case *military* discipline) maintains the veneer.
And the veneer of civilization is *a priori* good? I don't think so. I
dare say Golding doesn't either.