What the HELL is Piers Anthony thinking? Two Xanth books reviewed.
Steve Parker
is..yuck....brrrrr. Let me be clear: I can enjoy Chalker, despite
his...odd...ideas about how men and women interrelate (I know *I've*
never had a fantasy about turning a woman into a big breasted,
half-animal sex-zombie). I've even been known to read a Gor novel or
two, but these two books are just bent.
I read _Vale of the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_, which, along with _Man
from Mundania_ make a trilogy.:
In _VotV_, a kid of about 14 or so named Esk has a demoness sexual
predator after him. He's not able to handle a millennia old woman
trying to seduce him so he goes to Magician Humphrey's castle to find
out how to deal with her. He meets Chex, a winged centauress and
Volney a burrowing vole. They're off to see the wizard as well. Chex
can't fly, despite her wings and Volney's valley and people are being
ravaged by demons. They get into the magician's castle, going through
the obligatory puzzles and find the magician's missing. They run to
Castle Roogna and tell King Dor that A) the Magician's gone and B)
Demons are running amok, polluting one of the two major waterways in
Xanth and are killing his subjects. Dor says "How 'bout dat" and an
insanely irritating bit of idiot plotting ignores them. On their own,
the three have mini adventures as they try to assemble an army to
protect Volney's Vale. Esk meets Bria a brass humanoid woman who tries
to seduce him to get half Esk's soul. The armies assembled, they go to
Volney's Vale. There's a long creepy scene as the demoness tries to
get into Esk's pants. It's played partly for laughs. It's *not* funny.
Eventually, the good guys win and the demons leave.
The second book, set three years later has Dor still sitting on his
ass. Humphrey is still missing and some people who've gone looking for
him are missing too. Ho-hum. Dolph, Dor's *nine* (9) year old son
(note the kid's age. This is important) decides to go look for
Humphrey. He sets out with an animate skeleton (who appeared in the
last adventure) with his parent's approval. Point #1) Anthony has *no*
idea how to write a nine year old. This kid's dialogue varies from a
dim three-year old's to a sophisticated 40 year old's. Point #2) Note
to Piers: Alliteration isn't funny. It's less funny when *EVERYTHING#
is alliterative! Anyway, they set out and get to Humphrey's castle.
They pass the obligatory tests and get a clue left by Humphrey:
"Skeleton Key to Heaven Cent". They decide to go to the Keys at the
southern end of Xanth. They meet a Vila (a shape-changing nymph). She
tries to rape the kid (She strips and grinds herself against this
*nine* year old boy, she French-kisses him. He fights back). They
escape and get to the Keys. An amorous mermaid kidnaps Dolph and tries
her best to seduce him. The kid is eventually rescued. The kid meets
up with a group of Nagas (snake bodies/human heads). The father won't
help the kid unless the kid gets betrothed to his (older, 15 or so)
daughter. They meet some Fee (duck-footed humans). The Fee won't let
them pass unless the NINE year old kid mates with one of their women.
He doesn't, but just barely. There's a disquieting speech somewhere in
here (not at this point, but somewhere before) about how adults just
*love* to preserve the innocence of childhood and that's why they
won't tell Dolph how to summon the stork. This has a creepy ironic
flavor, given that almost every woman Dolph meets wants to molest
him.) Eventually the kid kisses a sleeping princess who can make
Heaven Cents. He has to get engaged to her too (this one's only 11
years old though). Finally the kid gives a speech about love and honor
that sounds like it was written for an overblown 40 year old actor ("I
learned last night that there is nothing wrong with that age. What
matters is the relationship...Give me the test [of true love, for] if
it does not vindicate me, you can break my betrothal to Nada". Typical
nine year old dialogue. It ends with the kid (at nine) engaged to two
women.
I won't even get into the misogynistic attitude that (almost all)
women only want trap men into marriage to get something from them
(Bria wants half of Esk's soul, Nada wants protection for her people,
both scheme to get married to their prey/potential hubbies).
What really creeps me out is not so much the concept of a younger kid
and an older person (which in and of itself is creepy) since it's a
medieval society and marriages happened at a much earlier age. I
understand that. I also understand teenage sex fantasies. I was a
teenager. I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
to take in watching the kid squirm. The recurring treatment molesters
aren't presented as bad or sick or evil, just as someone who's
offering something that the kid may not want. And it's no big deal
that they keep trying to force the kid to accept it. I know this theme
has cropped up in at least one other Xanth (a young girl who had a
demon that was trying to rape her...maybe _Ogre, Ogre_ or
_Nightmare_.).The recurring molesters aren't portrayed as sick or
evil, but just as fun-lovin' folk who're out for a good time.
I understand that in some segments of our society, it's considered no
big deal for young boys to be seduced/molested/boinked by older women,
indeed it's a badge of honor. This isn't even that. Anthony isn't
portraying some eager young kid looking for a good time in either
book, he seems to enjoy showing how uncomfortable the kid is. The
message portrayed is "Kids, older people will try to molest you. You
don't have to do it, although they may try to force themselves on
you, but it's no big deal if they try. And you might regret it later
if you don't.". Another way to look at Anthony's message is "Child
molesters are just looking for a good time. If you go along with it,
fine, if not fine, either way, no-one's hurt by it." Also, none of
the molester are ever punished (granted there's a third book in this
trilogy and maybe all the would-be molesters will be thrown in a pit
somewhere. If they get what's coming to them, I'll follow up with
another review taking back much of what I said here. I doubt I'll need
to.)
I'd love to see someone like Andrew Vachss's take on these books.
Steve
PS: Let me be clear: I'm not saying that Piers Anthony supports child
molestation. I am saying he's sending an awful message (intentionally
or otherwise) in both of these books.
--
Hugo-Reviews Page (with cover scans) at
http://www.mindspring.com/~sparker9/home2.html
Otto
wrote:
(tankity tankity)
>I just read two Xanth books (of a trilogy) and all I can say
>is..yuck....brrrrr.
That's because you're waaaaaaaaay outside the target audience, i.e.
horny thirteen-year-old boys.
>What really creeps me out is not so much the concept of a younger kid
>and an older person (which in and of itself is creepy) since it's a
>medieval society and marriages happened at a much earlier age.
Not that "Xanth" was ever this historically accurate.
>understand that. I also understand teenage sex fantasies. I was a
>teenager. I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
>recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person
This is playing to the crowd. Every teenaged boy who reads this is
thinking "man, if _I_ were there instead of _that_ schmoe, I would
_so_ be showing that chick who's her Daddy."
Commodore Otto
Theresa Wojtasiewicz
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:06:33 GMT, Steve Parker <spar...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> (tankity tankity)
>
> >is..yuck....brrrrr.
>
> horny thirteen-year-old boys.
>
> >and an older person (which in and of itself is creepy) since it's a
> >medieval society and marriages happened at a much earlier age.
>
>
> >teenager. I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
> >recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person
>
> thinking "man, if _I_ were there instead of _that_ schmoe, I would
> _so_ be showing that chick who's her Daddy."
>
that's an even worse thought.
I read the Xanth books - I stopped at Vale of the Vole because I
couldn't stomach any more of it - but I've found regardless of what
universe Anthony is writing in, the sexual themes are ever present. Have
you ever read his sf porn? I did - accidentally. I picked up an
anthology of his that was, in the first half, fairly innocuous stuff.
Then, I hit the porn. Eeuuuuwww. I can see that the target audience is
13 year old boys. But. It's not something 13 years old should read.
There's a difference, you see.
Steve Parker
>
>>understand that. I also understand teenage sex fantasies. I was a
>>teenager. I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
>>recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person
>
>This is playing to the crowd. Every teenaged boy who reads this is
>thinking "man, if _I_ were there instead of _that_ schmoe, I would
>_so_ be showing that chick who's her Daddy."
I disagree. Teen wish fulfillment would be similar to what you
described, except the kid would go through with it and have a good
time. I wouldn't have *quite* as big of a problem with it (frankly, at
13, I'd have probably enjoyed reading it). A cautionary tale would
have the kid being uncomfortable and eventually the pervert would get
punished I'd have no problem with that.
This, however, is saying "Hey kids (not just boys, remember), old
skanky folks'll try to grope you, you'll get all weirded out and it'll
be creepy. If it happens, don't sweat it, it's normal for them to try
and no big deal no matter how rotten it made you feel" with an implied
"It's not worth telling anyone either."
Steve
Jordan S. Bassior
> This, however, is saying "Hey kids (not just boys, remember), old
>skanky folks'll try to grope you, you'll get all weirded out and it'll
>be creepy. If it happens, don't sweat it, it's normal for them to try
>and no big deal no matter how rotten it made you feel" with an implied
>"It's not worth telling anyone either."
Where the heck in the Xanth series are you getting this idea from? Justin
Tree's falling in love with Brianna?
Brianna didn't think it was creepy ... she was the one to fall in love with him
first. At least be aware of the story you're criticizing!
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Joe Slater
>I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
>recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
>the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
>to take in watching the kid squirm.
Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
jds
David A Molnar
> So it's possible that Anthony is writing kiddie porn... for kiddies? Now
> that's an even worse thought.
That's an interesting way to think of it. I think I started reading the
series at 10 or 11, made it through a bunch of them, and then noticed they
were all the same story, and not told very well by the end. Then
experienced massive allergic reaction and swore never to read another
Xanth book again. Come to think of it, I've tried to avoid reading any
explicit "series" or "trilogy" since then.
(incidentally, I liked most of CS Friedman's _This Alien Shore_ and then
threw the book across the room at the ending. Maybe the sudden realization
that "it's a series!" had something to do with it)
At some point it dawned on me what "summoning the stork" referred to, but
don't know if that happened until a year or two after I started reading
the series. Wish I could remember what my reaction was.
> couldn't stomach any more of it - but I've found regardless of what
> universe Anthony is writing in, the sexual themes are ever present. Have
There are some weird moments in the series with the Phaze/Proton dual
worlds. I keep remembering one character who could turn into a
"dam" (female unicorn?) at will...
-David
rsn...@swbell.net
Joe Slater wrote:
> Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
> >I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
> >recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
> >the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
> >to take in watching the kid squirm.
>
> Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
> more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
> baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
Nathan Raue
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Steve Parker said:
>
> > This, however, is saying "Hey kids (not just boys, remember), old
> >skanky folks'll try to grope you, you'll get all weirded out and it'll
> >be creepy. If it happens, don't sweat it, it's normal for them to try
> >and no big deal no matter how rotten it made you feel" with an implied
> >"It's not worth telling anyone either."
>
> Where the heck in the Xanth series are you getting this idea from? Justin
> Tree's falling in love with Brianna?
>
> Brianna didn't think it was creepy ... she was the one to fall in love with him
> first. At least be aware of the story you're criticizing!
Steve said which Xanth books he was "getting this idea from": _Vale of
the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_. The young persons involved are both male,
the first being about fourteen and the second nine. The nine-year-old
has to repeatedly resist the sexual assaults of grown women; he is not
shown as enjoying it.
At least be aware of the review you're responding to.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
> > >recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
> > >the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
> > >to take in watching the kid squirm.
> >
> > more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
> > baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
>
> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
enjoying themselves.
Lis Carey
Steve Parker
wrote:
>
>Where the heck in the Xanth series are you getting this idea from? Justin
>Tree's falling in love with Brianna?
Jordan, please read my original post where I spend about 5 paragraphs
describing where I'm this information from.
>Brianna didn't think it was creepy ... she was the one to fall in love with him
>first. At least be aware of the story you're criticizing!
At least be aware of the post you're criticizing.
Steve Parker
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein;
At least Heinlein was dealing with consenting participants.
>Isaac"call me
>baby" Asimov;
<blink> Huh? Cite please, I've completly missed this unless you mean
whatshername from the hive-mind planet wanting to boink whatshisname,
the old historian guy in the second Foundation trilogy. But wasn't she
(hive-mind girl) in her early 20's, and part of a milliena-old
hive-mind? Or is this from the Seldon books which I've never gotten
through?
>and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
There are words: "perverse", "disturbing", "sick" and "dull". I just
tossed the newest Well-world novel in the "Maybe I'll finish it
someday" novel after *yet another* scene of women being turned into
big breasted, mindless robots. Snore.....
Steve
Joe Slater
>>look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein;
>At least Heinlein was dealing with consenting participants.
Yup. His fantasy was enthusiastic incest.
Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
>>Isaac"call me baby" Asimov;
><blink> Huh? Cite please,
He had a murder mystery where he lovingly described infantilism. His
females are generally sexless, but are often nurses: "The Ugly Little
Boy"'s nurse and Susan Calvin are examples in point. He's not nearly
as egregious as Heinlein, Anthony and Chalker, though.
>>and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
>There are words: "perverse", "disturbing", "sick" and "dull".
Well, yes.
jds
Elisabeth Carey
>
> ><joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >>look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein;
> >At least Heinlein was dealing with consenting participants.
>
> Yup. His fantasy was enthusiastic incest.
Any sexual content in which all the participants are willing and eager
participants is automatically less squicky than any sexual content in
which one or more participants are unwilling. Mind you, I don't say it
can't be squicky at all; only that it's less squicky.
> Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
> >>Isaac"call me baby" Asimov;
> ><blink> Huh? Cite please,
>
> He had a murder mystery where he lovingly described infantilism.
Which one? I don't remember that, and I do believe I've read all his
mysteries.
> His
> females are generally sexless,
As are his male characters.
> but are often nurses:
Yes, and...?
> "The Ugly Little
> Boy"'s nurse and Susan Calvin are examples in point.
Examples of _what_, exactly? Yes, the nurse in "The Ugly Little Boy"
is a nurse. Many women are, and it was a reasonable choice in the
context of that story. Yes, Susan Calvin is pretty sexless. And?
> He's not nearly
> as egregious as Heinlein, Anthony and Chalker, though.
Heinlein's rather sexist, in my opinion, but he did think that women
had both brains and sex drives. He thought everyone had a right to be
treated as an autonomous adult. Anthony seems to be extremely
misogynist, AND seems to have a number of really disturbing attitudes
with regard to sex, the current example being "child molesters just
wanna have fun". Chalker, well, "perverse, disturbing, sick, and dull"
doesn't seem to be an unfair description of _his_ fiction.
Asimov just didn't write about his characters' sex lives much at all,
or write very many female characters. The ones he did write, though
unlike Heinlein's in their sex lives, were generally intelligent and
autonomous adults.
Really, mentioning Asimov and Heinlein, who surely had some sexist
attitudes but basically liked and respected women, in the same breath
with Anthony and Chalker, seems almost as perverse as Anthony and
Chalker. IMHO.
<snip>
Lis Carey
Jean-Yves Herve
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as
>> to
>> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it
>> and
>> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
>
>And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
>enjoying themselves.
Have you read _Friday_?
jy herve.
--
=========================================================================
Jean-Yves Herve /\
Departement de genie electrique \/ e-mail --> j...@ai.polymtl.ca
et genie informatique /\
Ecole Polytechnique \/ Tel. --> (514) 340-4711, ext 5785
Montreal (Quebec) /\ Fax. --> (514) 340-5802
CANADA, H3C 3A7 \/
=========================================================================
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <3882F881...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as
> >> to
> >> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it
> >> and
> >> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
> >
> >And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
> >enjoying themselves.
>
> Have you read _Friday_?
Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
but a bad thing.
Lis Carey
Danny Sichel
>> "The Ugly Little Boy"'s nurse and Susan Calvin are examples in point.
> Examples of _what_, exactly? Yes, the nurse in "The Ugly Little Boy"
> is a nurse. Many women are, and it was a reasonable choice in the
> context of that story. Yes, Susan Calvin is pretty sexless. And?
And, in fact, there was a reason given for this - did you read _Liar_?
Dwight Thieme
: Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
: >I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
: >recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
: >the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
: >to take in watching the kid squirm.
: Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
: more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
: baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
Isaac!?!?! Just where did you pluck this nugget from?
Ike
Charles Frederick Goodin
Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote:
>I just read two Xanth books (of a trilogy) and all I can say
>is..yuck....brrrrr. Let me be clear: I can enjoy Chalker, despite
>his...odd...ideas about how men and women interrelate (I know *I've*
>never had a fantasy about turning a woman into a big breasted,
>half-animal sex-zombie). I've even been known to read a Gor novel or
>two, but these two books are just bent.
>
>I read _Vale of the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_, which, along with _Man
>from Mundania_ make a trilogy.:
>
>What really creeps me out is not so much the concept of a younger kid
>and an older person (which in and of itself is creepy) since it's a
>medieval society and marriages happened at a much earlier age. I
>understand that. I also understand teenage sex fantasies. I was a
>teenager. I've been there. What keeps giving me the creeps is the
>recurring theme of uncomfortable youth with lecherous older person and
>the delight that said person (and, from the narration, Anthony) seem
>to take in watching the kid squirm. The recurring treatment molesters
>aren't presented as bad or sick or evil, just as someone who's
>offering something that the kid may not want. And it's no big deal
>that they keep trying to force the kid to accept it. I know this theme
>has cropped up in at least one other Xanth (a young girl who had a
>demon that was trying to rape her...maybe _Ogre, Ogre_ or
Yes, it was _Ogre, Ogre_.
>_Nightmare_.).The recurring molesters aren't portrayed as sick or
>evil, but just as fun-lovin' folk who're out for a good time.
>
This is certainly not the worst example in Anthony's work; there's one of
his books (I don't remember the title, but I think it was a standalone
novel -- maybe _Ghost_) where a prepubescent girl purposely seduces an
adult male. The impression we're given is that it's bad that the man gets
caught and arrested because, after all, he wasn't doing anything wrong.
>I'd love to see someone like Andrew Vachss's take on these books. >
His Batman book was kind of...weird.
--
chuk
Mark Atwood
>
> Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
> more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
> baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
What and in what did Asimov do?
--
Mark Atwood | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that
m...@pobox.com | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else
| might. <http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm>
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Elisabeth Carey
Yup, I did.
Asimov just didn't like to complicate his stories with sex; he wasn't
unaware of the time and energy both men and women spend on it. (Yes, I
know, that was your point. I'm agreeing, not arguing.)
Lis Carey
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Brianna didn't think it was creepy ... she was the one to fall in love with him
>> first. At least be aware of the story you're criticizing!
>
>Steve said which Xanth books he was "getting this idea from": _Vale of
>the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_. The young persons involved are both male,
>the first being about fourteen and the second nine. The nine-year-old
>has to repeatedly resist the sexual assaults of grown women; he is not
>shown as enjoying it.
That strikes me as somewhat . . . odd. Why are these grown women
assaulting him? What purpose does it serve in the plot.
Oh, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable that the nine-year-old
wouldn't have enjoyed being sexually assaulted by grown women. At
nine, I would have been seriously squicked by the whole notion. At
fourteen, I would have been quite happy to be victimized in such a
manner.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<tw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So it's possible that Anthony is writing kiddie porn... for kiddies? Now
>that's an even worse thought.
Isn't kiddie porn for kiddies preferable to kiddie porn for adults?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
>more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
>baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
"Isaac 'call me baby' Asimov"? What's that from?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
>> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
>> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
>
>And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
>enjoying themselves.
Yup. And, given their technology, there's no genetic danger from
these odd couplings.
However, I, for one, could have done without all the incest. Just a
matter of personal preference, mind you.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Have you read _Friday_?
>
>Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
>but a bad thing.
Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
--
Pete McCutchen
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:09:50 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> Brianna didn't think it was creepy ... she was the one to fall in love with him
> >> first. At least be aware of the story you're criticizing!
> >
> >Steve said which Xanth books he was "getting this idea from": _Vale of
> >the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_. The young persons involved are both male,
> >the first being about fourteen and the second nine. The nine-year-old
> >has to repeatedly resist the sexual assaults of grown women; he is not
> >shown as enjoying it.
>
> That strikes me as somewhat . . . odd.
Yes, it does, doesn't? Have you read any of the Xanth books, Pete?
> Why are these grown women
> assaulting him? What purpose does it serve in the plot.
I would strongly suggest that you read Steve's first message in this
thread, where he spends five paragraphs explaining this in a fair
degree of detail. For myself, I'll simply say, you have a confidence
in Piers Anthony that's not justified--you're assuming these events
serve the plot, rather than t'other way 'round.
> Oh, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable that the nine-year-old
> wouldn't have enjoyed being sexually assaulted by grown women.
No one except Anthony is suggesting that grown women sexually
assaulting a nine-year-old is anything other than extremely squicky.
> At
> nine, I would have been seriously squicked by the whole notion. At
> fourteen, I would have been quite happy to be victimized in such a
> manner.
In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
in order to steal half of his soul.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:13:48 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> Have you read _Friday_?
> >
> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> >but a bad thing.
>
> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:11:10 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
> >> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
> >> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
> >
> >And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
> >enjoying themselves.
>
> Yup. And, given their technology, there's no genetic danger from
> these odd couplings.
>
> However, I, for one, could have done without all the incest. Just a
> matter of personal preference, mind you.
I agree completely, but there's still a huge difference between
Heinlein and Anthony, or Heinlein and Chalker.
Lis Carey
Mark Atwood
The people who delude themselves into thinking that kids dont have
nerve endings would probably argue that it's worse. It's bad enough to
aid in the corruption of adults, but to threaten their chyldreen... !
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> That strikes me as somewhat . . . odd.
>
>Yes, it does, doesn't? Have you read any of the Xanth books, Pete?
No. And I'm not going to. I've read maybe two things by Piers
Anthony, and didn't care for me. Given my two-strikes-and-you're-out
policy, ad the comments about him on this group, I'm not
reconsidering.
>
>> Why are these grown women
>> assaulting him? What purpose does it serve in the plot.
>
>I would strongly suggest that you read Steve's first message in this
>thread, where he spends five paragraphs explaining this in a fair
Alas, I never saw his first message. Propagation problems? Computer
problems? Maybe it will show up for me tomorrow, and I shall be
enlightened.
>degree of detail. For myself, I'll simply say, you have a confidence
>in Piers Anthony that's not justified--you're assuming these events
>serve the plot, rather than t'other way 'round.
No, I have no confidence in Piers Anthony. I was just trying to get a
sense of what the point was supposed to be. If there was a point. I
realize that I could read the books rather than ask, but it hardly
seems worth the ordeal in order to satisfy idle curiosity.
In any case, it's no biggie.
>
>> Oh, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable that the nine-year-old
>> wouldn't have enjoyed being sexually assaulted by grown women.
>
>No one except Anthony is suggesting that grown women sexually
>assaulting a nine-year-old is anything other than extremely squicky.
I think we agree. Was the nine-year-old in the story squicked?
Is Anthony a member of NAMBLA or some other group? Does he really
believe this shit, like Norman is supposed to believe that women are
natural sexual slaves?
I guess I'm just surprised, because, while I knew Anthony was known
for being a bad writer, I was unaware that he was also famous for
being a pervert as well.
>
>> At
>> nine, I would have been seriously squicked by the whole notion. At
>> fourteen, I would have been quite happy to be victimized in such a
>> manner.
>
>In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
>demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
>in order to steal half of his soul.
Oh. Well, that would be bad, then. Just the same, at fourteen
getting laid was definitely on my mind, while at nine it was not
really an issue.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
>> >but a bad thing.
>>
>> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
>
>Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
>believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
>wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
>Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
>
It strikes me that we are in substantial agreement.
--
Pete McCutchen
Jordan S. Bassior
> Anthony seems to be extremely misogynist
Yet frequently has female viewpoint characters, and has created some strong
female characters in general.
>AND seems to have a number of really disturbing attitudes
>with regard to sex, the current example being "child molesters just
>wanna have fun".
No ... his point is that not all of what we currently define as "molestation"
really IS "molestation" in the sense of "harm". He has a point: marriage and
sexual customs differ from place to place and time to time; there are times and
places in which consumnation of marriages in the early teens was the norm.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and
a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
J. B. Moreno
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> >> >but a bad thing.
> >>
> >> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
> >
> >Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
> >believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
> >wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
> >Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
Uhm, I don't think Friday objecting to it was ever put in a right/wrong
relationship -- the rape was an amateur attempt at torture.
Her objecting to it was a given and sorta the whole point.
No, if you want to complain about anything -- complain about the GUYS
motive. IIRC that is much less defensible: acting under orders,
certainly; do it or I blow your head off, again Ok; but wasn't there an
element of "you were sexy and looked like fun"?, which isn't OK.
(Except for the last, I don't object to the guy being forgiven so easily
-- Friday was a professional, a bit of torture was just a minor job
hazard, but someone that looked upon it as a bit of fun isn't my idea of
the ideal dinner companion).
(Pete, sorry for piggy-backing, but Lis' post hasn't arrived yet).
--
John B. Moreno
Jordan S. Bassior
>This is certainly not the worst example in Anthony's work; there's one of
>his books (I don't remember the title, but I think it was a standalone
>novel -- maybe _Ghost_) where a prepubescent girl purposely seduces an
>adult male. The impression we're given is that it's bad that the man gets
>caught and arrested because, after all, he wasn't doing anything wrong.
*Firefly*. And what was going on in that situation was:
SPOILERS ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
1) The girl's father first molested her, leading her to believe that sex was
perfectly all right at her age as a means of expression of affection.
2) She then seduced the (other) grown man, and the two fell in love.
3) The girl then made the mistake of telling a social worker about (2) but not
(1), with the result that
4) The man was arrested and imprisoned, and was murdered in prison for
committing statutory rape. Essentially, he was executed for the relationship.
5) Rather than protecting the girl, the social worker had betrayed her, caused
the death of her lover, and totally devastated her psychologically.
6) If the social worker hadn't done that, the clear implication in the story
was that the girl's lover would have married her when she came of age, and they
might have enjoyed a happy life together.
Piers Anthony constructed this story deliberately to point out some of the
logical and moral problems with the strict age-based legal definition of
"molestation". I will note that none of the critics I've seen in this thread
have responded to his logic, instead calling him "weird" and "creepy". These
are ad homineum attacks, not counterarguments.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:18:31 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> That strikes me as somewhat . . . odd.
> >
> >Yes, it does, doesn't? Have you read any of the Xanth books, Pete?
>
> No. And I'm not going to. I've read maybe two things by Piers
> Anthony, and didn't care for me. Given my two-strikes-and-you're-out
> policy, ad the comments about him on this group, I'm not
> reconsidering.
On the whole, I think that's wise.
> >> Why are these grown women
> >> assaulting him? What purpose does it serve in the plot.
> >
> >I would strongly suggest that you read Steve's first message in this
> >thread, where he spends five paragraphs explaining this in a fair
>
> Alas, I never saw his first message. Propagation problems? Computer
> problems? Maybe it will show up for me tomorrow, and I shall be
> enlightened.
You're the second person to respond to Steve's later messages in the
thread as if he'd never written the first one, and since you say you
haven't seen it at all, rather than having skipped it for one reason
or another, my guess would be propagation problems.
> >degree of detail. For myself, I'll simply say, you have a confidence
> >in Piers Anthony that's not justified--you're assuming these events
> >serve the plot, rather than t'other way 'round.
>
> No, I have no confidence in Piers Anthony. I was just trying to get a
> sense of what the point was supposed to be. If there was a point. I
> realize that I could read the books rather than ask, but it hardly
> seems worth the ordeal in order to satisfy idle curiosity.
>
> In any case, it's no biggie.
In one instance, it's the excuse to get the kid (the older one) to go
look for Humphrey, and discover he's missing. In another case, the
younger kid and his traveling companion need to pass through someone's
territory, and they demand that first he mate with one of their
women--it's all standard Anthony nonsense.
> >> Oh, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable that the nine-year-old
> >> wouldn't have enjoyed being sexually assaulted by grown women.
> >
> >No one except Anthony is suggesting that grown women sexually
> >assaulting a nine-year-old is anything other than extremely squicky.
>
> I think we agree. Was the nine-year-old in the story squicked?
He resisted; he did not like it. It's the reaction of the other
characters, and the authorial voice, that's disturbing.
> Is Anthony a member of NAMBLA or some other group? Does he really
> believe this shit, like Norman is supposed to believe that women are
> natural sexual slaves?
I don't know. He's married and has offspring, for what little that's
worth as evidence.
> I guess I'm just surprised, because, while I knew Anthony was known
> for being a bad writer, I was unaware that he was also famous for
> being a pervert as well.
The sad thing is, he's not really a bad writer. He's really quite
good--when he takes the time and trouble. Unfortunately, he discovered
some years ago that he could write this other stuff instead, and make
more money. I'd trace his downfall to the success of the second Xanth
book, myself.
For someone wanting sample the good Anthony stuff, I'd recommend _A
Spell for Chameleon_ (the first Xanth book), _On A Pale Horse_ (the
first Incarnations of Immortality book), the first Proton/Phaze
book...and by now a pattern should be starting to suggest itself. He
does real work getting an interesting premise well set up, and then he
coasts with it, and indulges himself, and more or less openly parades
his contempt for his readers, it seems to me.
<snip>
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:45 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> >> >but a bad thing.
> >>
> >> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
> >
> >Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
> >believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
> >wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
> >Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
> >
>
Hey, it happens sometimes, what can I say? :)
Lis Carey
Evelyn C. Leeper
You're just not trying hard enough. "For the sake of an argument" is
not just a phrase, it's a philosophy of life.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
Don't ever save anything for a special occasion. Every day you're
alive is a special occasion. --Ann Wells
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <38837FC6...@mediaone.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:45 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> > > <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> > > >> >but a bad thing.
> > > >>
> > > >> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
> > > >
> > > >Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
> > > >believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
> > > >wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
> > > >Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It strikes me that we are in substantial agreement.
> >
> > Hey, it happens sometimes, what can I say? :)
>
> You're just not trying hard enough. "For the sake of an argument" is
> not just a phrase, it's a philosophy of life.
I must be distracted, or unwell, or something.
Lis Carey
Evelyn C. Leeper
This is a ploy for more medicinal Lindt bars, Godiva truffles, and
kosher kimmel crackers to be delivered to you at Boskone, right?
Otto
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:45 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
>>> >but a bad thing.
>>>
>>> Though she subsequently makes up with one of her rapists.
>>
>>Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
>>believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
>>wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
>>Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
>>
>
>It strikes me that we are in substantial agreement.
Not that that ever stopped anyone on USEnet from getting into a
flamewar before.
Commodore "Dammit, you should agree with me MORE!" Otto
Otto
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Anthony is an old, sick man. He's not the first SF writer to reveal
>more than he intends; look at Robert "mofo" Heinlein; Isaac "call me
>baby" Asimov; and Jack "there simply are no words for this" Chalker.
>
Uh, yeah, like everyone else said. "Asimov? What's up with that?"
Or something.
Commodore Otto
Steve Parker
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> the second one was trying to seduce him
>in order to steal half of his soul.
Although, in the end, she decided she loved him, so that made it all
better. (I know *I'd* be comfortable with a woman who lied about
being in love with me in order to steal my soul, as long as she said
she was sorry about it afterwards. Oh and she still wanted 1/2 his
soul even after the protestations of true love.)
<sarcasm>
Anthony has a really healthy view of women, doesn't he.?
</sarcasm>
Steve
--
Hugo-Reviews Page (with cover scans) at
http://www.mindspring.com/~sparker9/home2.html
Steve Parker
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>hat strikes me as somewhat . . . odd. Why are these grown women
>assaulting him? What purpose does it serve in the plot.
>
None. It's just there because Anthony thinks it's funny. (not that
there's much of a plot to begin with...)
>Oh, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable that the nine-year-old
>wouldn't have enjoyed being sexually assaulted by grown women. At
>nine, I would have been seriously squicked by the whole notion. At
>fourteen, I would have been quite happy to be victimized in such a
>manner.
I have no problem with a the portrayal of a 9 year old kid being
uncomfortable about being molested. I have a problem with Anthony
playing it for yuks and the clearly implied "it's no big deal, and the
molester will never get punished, so why tell" message
Josh Kaderlan
wrote:
I haven't read the story in question, but the flaw in the logic is pretty
damn obvious: even if the girl had been taught that sex was an acceptable
way of demonstrating affection, the adult man she seduced should have
known better. Point (3) above is irrelevant.
-Josh
Josh Kaderlan
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:11:10 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
>>> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
>>> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
>>
>>And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
>>enjoying themselves.
>
>Yup. And, given their technology, there's no genetic danger from
>these odd couplings.
Except for the bits in *To Sail Beyond the Sunset*. Although he manages,
IIRC, to avoid the genetic danger bit by having all the women in question
already pregnant at the time. (Except, I think, for the time Maureen
attempts to seduce Ira.)
-Josh
Nancy Lebovitz
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> At
>>> nine, I would have been seriously squicked by the whole notion. At
>>> fourteen, I would have been quite happy to be victimized in such a
>>> manner.
>>
>>In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
>>demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
>>in order to steal half of his soul.
>
>Oh. Well, that would be bad, then. Just the same, at fourteen
>getting laid was definitely on my mind, while at nine it was not
>really an issue.
>
At fourteen, you still might have been uncomfortable with someone
who was too aggressive, inconsiderate, or demanding.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
October '99 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Marilee J. Layman
<spar...@home.com> wrote:
>I just read two Xanth books (of a trilogy) and all I can say
>is..yuck....brrrrr.
What's he thinking? He thinks he's making money.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Chats & Message > SF Forum > The Other*Worlds*Cafe
James C. Ellis
>
> Josh Kaderlan said:
>
> >I haven't read the story in question, but the flaw in the logic is
> >pretty damn obvious: even if the girl had been taught that sex was an
> >acceptable way of demonstrating affection, the adult man she seduced
> >should have known better.
>
> her lover and blighting her future.
Haven't I heard you argue in favour of capital punishment as a
deterrence?
Obviously the next pedophile might not be as benevolent. Killing him
also ensures those nasty "pedophile genes" are not passed on.
[Warning: high hyperbole content.]
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Wasp
> >In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
> >demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
> >in order to steal half of his soul.
>
> Oh. Well, that would be bad, then. Just the same, at fourteen
> getting laid was definitely on my mind,
And most boys at that age -- myself included -- wouldn't blink twice at
handing over a mere half their soul for the chance. And if the demoness
sexual predator was a babe, her essential nature wouldn't cause most of
us to bat an eye, either.
In the age group in question, I assure you, the brains flee swiftly
when thoughts of females begin to appear.
Now, the NINE year old, I agree with everyone else; definitely too
wierd for me.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
> For someone wanting sample the good Anthony stuff, I'd recommend _A
> Spell for Chameleon_ (the first Xanth book), _On A Pale Horse_ (the
> first Incarnations of Immortality book), the first Proton/Phaze
> book...and by now a pattern should be starting to suggest itself.
You leave out _Macroscope_, which I consider to be by far his best
work.
Mark D. McKean
spar...@home.com wrote:
> I know this theme
> has cropped up in at least one other Xanth (a young girl who had a
> demon that was trying to rape her...maybe _Ogre, Ogre_ or
> _Nightmare_.).The recurring molesters aren't portrayed as sick or
> evil, but just as fun-lovin' folk who're out for a good time.
Not evil? Two of the ones you've cited (in _Vale of the Vole_ and _Ogre,
Ogre_) are *demons*. Demons are not normally good folk. The others
aren't normal humans, so human standards may not apply.
Doesn't make it right, true, but I think you may be applying a harsher
standard than is warranted. Anthony is very much not in favor of child
molestation, but his particular opinion on the whole "minor" issue does
not match the one most frequently seen in modern society. I agree with
*parts* of his opinion on the issue...some of it just doesn't mesh with
my moral and ethical standards.
Now, if you want to argue that Xanth from VOTV forward is bad because
it's poorly written, I'll back you up on every step...Anthony has
clearly been focussing what writing talent and skill he still has into
books other than Xanth. (If there's any left. I haven't enjoyed anything
he's written since _Chaos Mode_, and haven't read any of his new books
that have been published in the last two or three years. And probably
won't read any more new ones at all, with the exception of _DoOon Mode_,
and that one only because I want to see how that story comes out.)
--
Mark D. McKean - The Quantum Panda - qpa...@iwaynet.net
John S. Novak, III
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Is Anthony a member of NAMBLA or some other group? Does he really
>> believe this shit, like Norman is supposed to believe that women are
>> natural sexual slaves?
>I don't know. He's married and has offspring, for what little that's
>worth as evidence.
Has anyone had the misfotune o freading any collections of his short
stories?
(Still highly amused by the fact that one day, long ago when I was in
high school or late grade school, my own mother bought me a copy of
_Mute_ from a garage sale, because she recognized the author name on
the cover...)
>For someone wanting sample the good Anthony stuff, I'd recommend _A
>Spell for Chameleon_ (the first Xanth book), _On A Pale Horse_ (the
>first Incarnations of Immortality book), the first Proton/Phaze
>book...and by now a pattern should be starting to suggest itself.
I'd even go so far as to say the first three books of the Phaze/Proton
series. It's perhaps the only series he finished well. (I regard the
fourth and further volumes as hallucinations.)
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
>>>In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
>>>demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
>>>in order to steal half of his soul.
>>Oh. Well, that would be bad, then. Just the same, at fourteen
>>getting laid was definitely on my mind, while at nine it was not
>>really an issue.
>At fourteen, you still might have been uncomfortable with someone
>who was too aggressive, inconsiderate, or demanding.
At fourteen, I'd have had Issues.
At sixteen, my forebrain would have had issues, because my forebrain
was steped in religion, but my hindbrain probably would have siphoned
off the holy water, replaced it with gasoline, and tossed in a match.
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> Elisabeth Carey said:
> > Anthony seems to be extremely misogynist
> Yet frequently has female viewpoint characters, and has created some strong
> female characters in general.
> >AND seems to have a number of really disturbing attitudes
> >with regard to sex, the current example being "child molesters just
> >wanna have fun".
> No ... his point is that not all of what we currently define as "molestation"
> really IS "molestation" in the sense of "harm". He has a point: marriage and
> sexual customs differ from place to place and time to time; there are times and
> places in which consumnation of marriages in the early teens was the norm.
At least one of the squicky things about what may or may not be harmful
"intergenerational" sex is the imbalance of power. In general, the older
person will know much more about mind-games and other manipulation than
the younger. There may be hidden agendas, like the half-soul thing, which
the younger person may or may not spot in time. An adolescent boy won't
be able to stand up to the millennia-old succubus, even if she does look
like one of his peers and he's able to delude himself into thinking he
can handle it.
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Joe Slater
>> He had a murder mystery where he lovingly described infantilism.
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Which one? I don't remember that, and I do believe I've read all his
>mysteries.
_Murder at the ABA_.
>Heinlein's rather sexist, in my opinion, but he did think that women
>had both brains and sex drives.
I don't disagree. I was enumerating authors who have recurring sexual
themes in their fiction.
jds
Steve Parker
wrote:
> This all seems theologically questionable. If I believed in
>souls, I would think that they were indivisible, or if not, that the
>whole inhered in each part so it didn't matter, or at the very worst,
>that each half would regenerate, as non-urban legend has it about
>earthworms. (Yeah, I know, wrong newsgroup for this. Never mind.)
They do regenerate over time in Xanth, but it may or may not hurt to
lose half your soul and leaves you with an empty feeling until it
grows back. You also may still be linked to your other half-soul so if
it's abused you may be aware of it. Most of the divisibility of souls
issue cropped up in ?_Nightmare_?, which I have no intention of going
back and rereading. There's also the odd theological issue (never
dealt with) as to what happens if you lose 1/2 your soul and
immediately thereafter die. What happens to you?
John Boston
says...
>
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:18:31 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>> the second one was trying to seduce him
>>in order to steal half of his soul.
>
>better. (I know *I'd* be comfortable with a woman who lied about
>being in love with me in order to steal my soul, as long as she said
>she was sorry about it afterwards. Oh and she still wanted 1/2 his
>soul even after the protestations of true love.)
This all seems theologically questionable. If I believed in
souls, I would think that they were indivisible, or if not, that the
whole inhered in each part so it didn't matter, or at the very worst,
that each half would regenerate, as non-urban legend has it about
earthworms. (Yeah, I know, wrong newsgroup for this. Never mind.)
John Boston
Martin Wisse
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Jean-Yves Herve wrote:
>>
>> In article <3882F881...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
>> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as
>> >> to
>> >> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it
>> >> and
>> >> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
>> >
>> >And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
>> >enjoying themselves.
>>
>> Have you read _Friday_?
>
>Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
>but a bad thing.
Rape was causally dismissed you mean. "I don't mind him raping me, but
he should have brushed his teeth."
Martin Wisse
Jordan S. Bassior
>I haven't read the story in question, but the flaw in the logic is pretty
>damn obvious: even if the girl had been taught that sex was an acceptable
>way of demonstrating affection, the adult man she seduced should have
>known better.
Yes. This is true. Now explain how the law "protected" her by killing her lover
and blighting her future.
>Point (3) above is irrelevant.
If she hadn't told the social worker, she would have been a heck of a lot
better off. She would have reached the age of consent, married her lover, and
had a reasonably happy life.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <38838793...@mediaone.net>,> > > In article <38837FC6...@mediaone.net>,
> > > Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > > Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:21:45 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> > > > > <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> > > > > >> >but a bad thing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Didn't say Heinlein was all that tightly wrapped--just that he
> > > > > >believed sex should be consensual, and that it was a bad thing when it
> > > > > >wasn't. The guy was forgiven too easily; there was no suggestion that
> > > > > >Friday was wrong to object in the first place.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It strikes me that we are in substantial agreement.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're just not trying hard enough. "For the sake of an argument" is
> > > not just a phrase, it's a philosophy of life.
> >
> > I must be distracted, or unwell, or something.
>
> This is a ploy for more medicinal Lindt bars, Godiva truffles, and
> kosher kimmel crackers to be delivered to you at Boskone, right?
Absolutely. You are a wise and perceptive woman, Evelyn.
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
Neither my nor Steve's criticism of Anthony was based on his having
recurring sexual themes in his fiction. It's based on his having a
_particular kind_ of quite icky sexual themes in his fiction.
Lis Carey
Steve Parker
(Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
>kosher kimmel crackers
What in the world are "kosher kimmel crackers"? If they're good enough
to be in the company of Godiva chocolate and Lindt bars, I must try
them.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On 17 Jan 2000 21:35:44 GMT, ele...@starship.dnrc.bell-labs.com
> (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
>
> >kosher kimmel crackers
>
> What in the world are "kosher kimmel crackers"? If they're good enough
> to be in the company of Godiva chocolate and Lindt bars, I must try
> them.
If you're Catholic, they're very communion wafers, except larger and
not transubstantiated. I found that they went very will with the Lindt
chocolate.
I freely admit this may be more evidence of my peculiarity.
Lis Carey
William Clifford
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:11:10 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>> I have not read any late Asimov or any Chalker at all, but I disagree as to
>>> Heinlein. I think he knew precisely what he was writing. He liked it and
>>> no longer gave a rat's ass whether or not anyone else did.
>>
>>And in Heinlein's fiction, it was always freely consenting people
>>enjoying themselves.
>
>Yup. And, given their technology, there's no genetic danger from
>these odd couplings.
>
>However, I, for one, could have done without all the incest. Just a
>matter of personal preference, mind you.
We haven't mentioned Varley who also puts some pretty questionable
stuff in his writings too. I'd be curious what the take on his Eight
Worlds stories are. Maybe I'll finally write the big "Morality and
Sexuality in the writings of John Varley" rant/thesis I've been
meaning to write for this newsgroup.
Another content appropriate book to add to the list this thread is
gathering is C.D. Paynes' _Youth in Revolt_. Not SF but you won't
notice. It's funnier and more horrifying in a single random page than
Piers Anthony's entire output. I have a few complaints about it but
nothing that would prevent me from otherwise raving enthusiastically
about it. In light of the comments about the above mentioned Xanth
books it would make for some interesting comparison reading. What did
Anthony do wrong that Payne somehow did right?
--
|William Clifford |"If you draw a bow, draw the strongest.|
|wo...@yahoo.com | Yes, and if you use and arrow, use the|
|lame webpage at: | longest. (Oh yes!)" |
|<to.be.announced> | Squirrel Nut Zippers, "Soon"|
Jordan S. Bassior
>Not evil? Two of the ones you've cited (in _Vale of the Vole_ and _Ogre,
>Ogre_) are *demons*. Demons are not normally good folk. The others
>aren't normal humans, so human standards may not apply.
And one of the demons (the male from Ogre, Ogre) gets his comeuppance. The
other (D. Mentia) is eventually redeemed by her ability to love.
Ross TenEyck
>Pete McCutchen wrote:
>> >In the case of the fourteen-year-old, the first one was a millenia-old
>> >demoness sexual predator, and the second one was trying to seduce him
>> >in order to steal half of his soul.
>>
>> Oh. Well, that would be bad, then. Just the same, at fourteen
>> getting laid was definitely on my mind,
>And most boys at that age -- myself included -- wouldn't blink twice at
>handing over a mere half their soul for the chance. And if the demoness
>sexual predator was a babe, her essential nature wouldn't cause most of
>us to bat an eye, either.
Even at fourteen, I might have been distracted -- momentarily -- by
the interesting theological question of what precisely "half" one's
soul is, and in what way one would be inconvenienced by not having
it.
>In the age group in question, I assure you, the brains flee swiftly
>when thoughts of females begin to appear.
That's why I keep trying to tell people that telling fourteen-year-old
males that they should refrain from sex because they might get a disease
that might kill them in a few years is futile. Give a typical guy that
age the option of getting laid, knowing that it will be followed by
immediate and certain death, and I bet most of them would at least
consider it.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Steve Parker
wrote:
>I'd even go so far as to say the first three books of the Phaze/Proton
>series. It's perhaps the only series he finished well. (I regard the
>fourth and further volumes as hallucinations.)
I'd go even further. The second Xanth book _The Source of Magic_ was
better than the first and the third _Castle Roogna_ wasn't bad at all.
Then of course began the long, long, long descent into drek.
Steve Parker
<qpa...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>Not evil? Two of the ones you've cited (in _Vale of the Vole_ and _Ogre,
>Ogre_) are *demons*. Demons are not normally good folk. The others
>aren't normal humans, so human standards may not apply.
But human standards should apply in the way the humans react to the
child molesting non-humans
In the _VotV_ book the demoness isn't *shown* as evil, but rather as
lusty and mischevious (except for one bit where she threatens Esk's
folks, which is soon shown to be a bluff.). Frankly she seemed like a
horney female version of Superman's nemesis Mr. Myzxtplk (sp). Anthony
may use the word 'demon', but the type of creature he attaches to the
name could more accurately be described as Djinn. (Look at the demon
(X/AN)th or Beauregard from the first two Xanth books. They're not
demons in the commonly used meanings of the word.
And none of the perverts (specifically the Vila and the Mermaid, who
actually uses the 'Have some candy, little boy' approach!) who attempt
to molest Dolph (against his will.) in _Heaven Cent_ are shown as
evil. Just horny and neither Anthony nor the adult accompanying Dolph
think this is any big deal or think anything less of the two would-be
rapists. Hell, it's explicitly stated that Dolph's parents, two of the
most powerful people in Xanth (politically and magically) *know* that
Dolph has been kidnapped by the mermaid for sexual purposes and don't
think it's important enough to go to where the mermaid lives and try
to rescue the kid. And there are no consequences for either molester,
except that the mermaid gets rewarded. (Threaten to rape a kid,
because you're horny, bored and lonely, and get a reward. Anthony, if
he believes this, needs help)
Steve
Louann Miller
"These geeks will buy anything with the Xanth(tm) name on it" would be
my guess.
Louann
Ahab's soul
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>Josh Kaderlan said:
>
>>I haven't read the story in question, but the flaw in the logic is pretty
>>damn obvious: even if the girl had been taught that sex was an acceptable
>>way of demonstrating affection, the adult man she seduced should have
>>known better.
>
>Yes. This is true. Now explain how the law "protected" her by killing her lover
>and blighting her future.
If I was seduced as a youngster and that squicky adult was imprissoned I
would not consider my future blighted. If the adult really had his/her
claws into me psychologically speaking then their death in prison would
bother me. However, I consider it a pretty bad situation if an adult has
manipulated a child to the degree that separation by prison cannot break
the unhealthy relationship.
>
>>Point (3) above is irrelevant.
>
>If she hadn't told the social worker, she would have been a heck of a lot
>better off. She would have reached the age of consent, married her lover, and
>had a reasonably happy life.
Or realized that she was taken advantage of by a creep and then commit
suicide. Who is to say which path she would take?
IMHO if a person respects a girl or boy then they will let them get old
enough to make intelligent decisions before moving in on them
romance-wise. A 40 year-old that uses the advantage of age, money,
maturity (compared to 14 year old children), & car to seduce a 14 year old
is pretty messed up and not the best thing for your average 14 year old.
Just because a person is old enough to fuck does not mean that they are
mature enough to to deal wi th a 40 year-old horny bastard.
ralphus
------------------------------------
to e-mail me, omit the "OMIT.THIS" from my posted e-mail address
J. B. Moreno
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
-snip-
> >In the age group in question, I assure you, the brains flee swiftly
> >when thoughts of females begin to appear.
>
> That's why I keep trying to tell people that telling fourteen-year-old
> males that they should refrain from sex because they might get a disease
> that might kill them in a few years is futile. Give a typical guy that
> age the option of getting laid, knowing that it will be followed by
> immediate and certain death, and I bet most of them would at least
> consider it.
Well, I wouldn't go that far -- but give them "good" odds (say 1 chance
in 10 of immediate death) and I'd not argue the point.
--
John B. Moreno
Pete McCutchen
Wisse) wrote:
>>Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
>>but a bad thing.
>
>Rape was causally dismissed you mean. "I don't mind him raping me, but
>he should have brushed his teeth."
That bugged me a bit as well, but I took it to be an example of her
low self-esteem, rather than an authorial view about rape.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>*Firefly*. And what was going on in that situation was:
>
>SPOILERS ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>1) The girl's father first molested her, leading her to believe that sex was
>perfectly all right at her age as a means of expression of affection.
This is bad.
>
>2) She then seduced the (other) grown man, and the two fell in love.
Well, one of the things about being an adult, is that you have an
obligation to resist the advances of children. Which most
non-perverts do not find difficult, at least before the girl is
sexually mature. (How old was she in the story, btw?)
The proper response would be for the man to tell her that sex is
inappropriate at that time, but that he'd be happy to develop a
platonic friendship with her. If she still felt the same way at
eighteen or so, he might reconsider.
If nothing else, the sexual advances of a child who's been molested
may be based on the fact that the child has developed an unhealthy
view of sexuality and affection. The last thing such a child needs is
another adult sexually exploiting her.
IOW, the "consent" of such a child doesn't count.
>
>3) The girl then made the mistake of telling a social worker about (2) but not
>(1), with the result that
>
>4) The man was arrested and imprisoned, and was murdered in prison for
>committing statutory rape. Essentially, he was executed for the relationship.
No. He was imprisoned for the relationship. He happened to be killed
in prison, but that wasn't part of his official punishment.
>
>5) Rather than protecting the girl, the social worker had betrayed her, caused
>the death of her lover, and totally devastated her psychologically.
Well, perhaps. But these are foreseeable events from the point of
view of the man about to engage in a sexual relationship with an
underage girl. _He_ caused the events by having sex with her.
And from the social worker's point of view, it's very difficult to
distinguish between an honest, loving intergenerational relationship
and an exploitative relationship. If nothing else, he was exploiting
the emotional state created by the molesting father.
>
>6) If the social worker hadn't done that, the clear implication in the story
>was that the girl's lover would have married her when she came of age, and they
>might have enjoyed a happy life together.
They could have done all that, merely by keeping their pants on until
she came of age.
>
>Piers Anthony constructed this story deliberately to point out some of the
>logical and moral problems with the strict age-based legal definition of
>"molestation". I will note that none of the critics I've seen in this thread
>have responded to his logic, instead calling him "weird" and "creepy". These
>are ad homineum attacks, not counterarguments.
You don't need to write a story like *that* to point out that there
are problems with a strict age-based definition of the "age of
consent." Depending on how the laws are structured, you get all sorts
of stupidities, like two seventeen-year-olds who "rape" each other, or
one partner "molesting" another when they're only a year or two apart
in age.
But Jordan, I'm willing to say that a situation where a man has sex
with a young girl who was previously molested by her father isn't one
of those situations, _even if they genuinely feel love and affection
for one another_. What kind of man would actually do that Jordan? Do
you really think he'd marry her? Or would he find some other little
girl, to be his Lollita?
--
Pete McCutchen
Heather Garvey
>jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>
>>*Firefly*. And what was going on in that situation was:
>>
>>SPOILERS ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>Well, one of the things about being an adult, is that you have an
>obligation to resist the advances of children. Which most
>non-perverts do not find difficult, at least before the girl is
>sexually mature. (How old was she in the story, btw?)
>The proper response would be for the man to tell her that sex is
>inappropriate at that time, but that he'd be happy to develop a
>platonic friendship with her. If she still felt the same way at
>eighteen or so, he might reconsider.
An even better response would be to inform social services
or a decent therapist, because that girl has issues that need to be
resolved before she can have healthy relationships at *any* age!
This also does not preclude them maintaining a platonic relationship
and perhaps eventually reconsidering when she turns eighteen.
>>6) If the social worker hadn't done that, the clear implication in the story
>>was that the girl's lover would have married her when she came of age, and
>>they might have enjoyed a happy life together.
Because, of course, being scarred by years of abuse and marrying
the first man to exploit your abuse is the *best* recipe for a happy life!
--
Heather Garvey | (Re: Deut 23:1) So really, all I need to do
ra...@xnet.com | is kick a fundie in the nuts, and say: "Sorry,
http://www.xnet.com/~raven/ | pal. You ain't gonna ever meet God now."
The Lady with the LART | -- Wabewalker <r...@best.com>
Mark Langsdorf
Pete McCutchen wrote in message
<7i898sscusihuh61m...@4ax.com>...
I always assumed that her reaction to the rape was rather
context dependent. She's been captured, they're going to
tortue her, and all she can really do is hang around waiting
for the cavalry. Under those circumstances, the rape is no
more or less objectionable than anything else that will happen
to her.
In a different situation, doesn't Friday indicate that she is
willing to kill people who attempt to molest/harm Janet?
That doesn't seem to indicate approval of rape.
-Mark Langsdorf
Josh Kaderlan
>Josh Kaderlan said:
>
>>I haven't read the story in question, but the flaw in the logic is pretty
>>damn obvious: even if the girl had been taught that sex was an acceptable
>>way of demonstrating affection, the adult man she seduced should have
>>known better.
>
>Yes. This is true. Now explain how the law "protected" her by killing her lover
>and blighting her future.
This presumes that the law did in fact blight her future. Given the way
these types of things usually work in the real world, I'd say that the law
protected her by getting her away from a predator. Even if the girl was
the one who initiated the sexual contact, any adult who takes advantage of
that situation is morally and legally culpable. That's the whole point of
statutory rape and child molestation laws; saying "but the child
consented" isn't a defense.
>>Point (3) above is irrelevant.
>
>If she hadn't told the social worker, she would have been a heck of a lot
>better off. She would have reached the age of consent, married her lover, and
>had a reasonably happy life.
Let's look at the points you snipped:
>1) The girl's father first molested her, leading her to believe that sex
>was perfectly all right at her age as a means of expression of affection.
>
>2) She then seduced the (other) grown man, and the two fell in love.
>
>3) The girl then made the mistake of telling a social worker about (2)
>but not (1), with the result that
>
>4) The man was arrested and imprisoned, and was murdered in prison for
>committing statutory rape. Essentially, he was executed for the
>relationship.
Whether or not the girl thought that sex was okay because she'd been
molested is irrelevant; in fact, it looks to me like you're saying that
it's okay to commit statutory rape/child molestation if the child in
question has been previously molested. The whole point behind the age of
consent is the notion that children under that age *cannot* give informed
consent.
Hell, point (1) looks nuts to me. How many kids who have been molested
come out of thinking that sex is just great?
-Josh
Mike Schilling
> Steve Parker wrote:
> >
> > On 17 Jan 2000 21:35:44 GMT, ele...@starship.dnrc.bell-labs.com
> > (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
> >
> > >kosher kimmel crackers
> >
> > What in the world are "kosher kimmel crackers"? If they're good enough
> > to be in the company of Godiva chocolate and Lindt bars, I must try
> > them.
>
> If you're Catholic, they're very communion wafers, except larger and
> not transubstantiated. I found that they went very will with the Lindt
> chocolate.
And if you're Jewish, what are they?
Danny Sichel
>> For someone wanting sample the good Anthony stuff, I'd recommend _A
>> Spell for Chameleon_ (the first Xanth book), _On A Pale Horse_ (the
>> first Incarnations of Immortality book), the first Proton/Phaze
>> book...and by now a pattern should be starting to suggest itself.
> You leave out _Macroscope_, which I consider to be by far his best
> work.
Anyone ever read his collection of shorts about the interplanetary
dentist?
Danny Sichel
>>>2) She then seduced the (other) grown man, and the two fell in love.
>>Well, one of the things about being an adult, is that you have an
>>obligation to resist the advances of children. Which most
>>non-perverts do not find difficult, at least before the girl is
>>sexually mature. (How old was she in the story, btw?)
>>The proper response would be for the man to tell her that sex is
>inappropriate at that time, but that he'd be happy to develop a
>>platonic friendship with her. If she still felt the same way at
>>eighteen or so, he might reconsider.
> An even better response would be to inform social services
> or a decent therapist, because that girl has issues that need to be
> resolved before she can have healthy relationships at *any* age!
> This also does not preclude them maintaining a platonic relationship
> and perhaps eventually reconsidering when she turns eighteen.
Oh, god. I just remembered a similar situation from Anthony's _And
Eternity_.
The girl was older - definitely not prepubescent - but still not of age.
And the guy was a judge.
However, due to time dilatation (or some such plot development), he
ruled that she now counted as legal.
Richard Harter
>This presumes that the law did in fact blight her future. Given the way
>these types of things usually work in the real world, I'd say that the law
>protected her by getting her away from a predator. Even if the girl was
>the one who initiated the sexual contact, any adult who takes advantage of
>that situation is morally and legally culpable. That's the whole point of
>statutory rape and child molestation laws; saying "but the child
>consented" isn't a defense.
As a side issue, I wish to point out that the language you use is
loaded and contains a lot of cultural assumptions, e.g., calling
someone who is sexually mature a child, presuming that said "children"
do not have the right to sexual activity, use of the term "predator",
et cetera.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Tick tock, Tick tock, the hours run on
Like little mice under the feet of elephants.
Jordan S. Bassior
>> Yes. This is true. Now explain how the law "protected" her by killing
>> her lover and blighting her future.
>
> Haven't I heard you argue in favour of capital punishment as a
>deterrence?
Oh yeah, gotta stamp out that nasty LOVE ...
J. B. Moreno
> Pete McCutchen wrote in message
> >mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) wrote:
> >
> >>>Yes. Rape was treated as _bad_ thing. Not the worst possible thing,
> >>>but a bad thing.
> >>
> >>Rape was causally dismissed you mean. "I don't mind him raping me, but
> >>he should have brushed his teeth."
> >
> >That bugged me a bit as well, but I took it to be an example of her
> >low self-esteem, rather than an authorial view about rape.
>
> I always assumed that her reaction to the rape was rather
> context dependent. She's been captured, they're going to
> tortue her, and all she can really do is hang around waiting
> for the cavalry. Under those circumstances, the rape is no
> more or less objectionable than anything else that will happen
> to her.
> In a different situation, doesn't Friday indicate that she is
> willing to kill people who attempt to molest/harm Janet?
> That doesn't seem to indicate approval of rape.
That could be viewed as another example of her low self-esteem.
Personally I think it's all part of Heinlein's (written) attitude
towards sex -- basically it's a bodily interaction that is normally
pleasurable. Rape is "wrong" not because the other person was
unwilling, but because it damages their psyche (and sometimes body).
Friday, through culture and training, was pretty much immune to damage
from a simple rape, and so didn't find it any big deal when she suffered
it -- she doesn't believe the same applies to Janet, whom she loves.
Also -- Friday is a bit of a killer, I don't think mugging Janet would
be a safe thing to do, particularly if you bruised her in the process.
--
John B. Moreno
Elio M. Garcia, Jr.
> Personally I think it's all part of Heinlein's (written) attitude
> towards sex -- basically it's a bodily interaction that is normally
> pleasurable. Rape is "wrong" not because the other person was
> unwilling, but because it damages their psyche (and sometimes body).
> Friday, through culture and training, was pretty much immune to dama
I've never gotten the impression that that was his written attitude, so
to speak.
As I recall (it's been some years), TMiaHM has a riot begins in earnest
when a woman is raped by some of the guards of the prison colony and
everyone in the region responds with violence. I believe the man and his
pals were turned over to the women in the crowd and suffered a long,
very painful death. I believe Manny's mental "explaination" are much
like the following passage from _The Cat who Walks Through Walls_:
Over eighty years since the last one [rape] and the groundhog who
committed it didn't last long enough to be eliminated; the men who
responded to her screams tore him to pieces.
Later it was learned she had screamed because he hadn't payed her. This
made no difference. To a Loonie a hooker is just as sacred in her person
as is the Virgin Mary... The _only_ proper punishment for rape is death,
forthwith, no appeal.
There used to be, dirtside, legal defenses called "diminished capacity"
and "not guilty by reason of insanity." These concepts would bewilder a
Loonie. In Luna City a man would necessarily be of diminished capacity
even to think about rape; to carry one out would be the strongest
possible proof of insanity -- but among Loonies, such mental disorders
would not gain a rapist any sympathy. Loonies do not psychoanalyze a
rapist; they _kill_ him. Fast. Brutally.
::::::::
Given the qualities with which Heinlein imbues most Loonies (male and,
I've always felt, especially female), they're too tough to take
particular psychological damage from the act. But forcing sex on a woman
that they don't want ... that's the stuff that dead bodies are made of.
--
[Upon a Dzurlord learning of the murder of a critic by a painter]
"And it was well done, too. I'd have done the same, only-"
"Yes?"
"I don't paint." (Steven Brust, _The Phoenix Guards_)
Elio M. García, Jr. (el...@swipnet.se)
Josh Kaderlan
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:50:14 GMT, j...@zer0.org (Josh Kaderlan) wrote:
>
>>This presumes that the law did in fact blight her future. Given the way
>>these types of things usually work in the real world, I'd say that the law
>>protected her by getting her away from a predator. Even if the girl was
>>the one who initiated the sexual contact, any adult who takes advantage of
>>that situation is morally and legally culpable. That's the whole point of
>>statutory rape and child molestation laws; saying "but the child
>>consented" isn't a defense.
>
>As a side issue, I wish to point out that the language you use is
>loaded and contains a lot of cultural assumptions, e.g., calling
>someone who is sexually mature a child, presuming that said "children"
>do not have the right to sexual activity, use of the term "predator",
>et cetera.
I'm at a disadvantage here, since I haven't read the story in question.
From Jordan's description of the story, it didn't sound to me like the
girl in question was sexually mature; if she was, then I wouldn't have
called her a child. I used the term "predator" in terms of the way these
situations generally work in the real world, in my understanding.
As for presuming that sexually-mature-but-not-yet-of-consenting-age people
do not have a right ro sexual activity, I think that they have a *limited*
right, on a sliding scale. As they get older, the limitations lessen.
How old was the girl in the story?
-Josh
Coyu
>I'd love to see someone like Andrew Vachss's take on these books.
Hm. It's a thought...
--
Hey, I'm not even seeing my _own_ posts, for days now.
If you've written something you really want me to see,
e-mail it as well as post it. Thanks!
Jerry Brown
wrote:
> You leave out _Macroscope_, which I consider to be by far his best
>work.
And surely "Prostho Plus" will go down in history as the best
SF/Dentistry novel ever.
Jerry Brown
Old Jedis never die,
They only fade away!
William Davis
>Steve Parker wrote:
>
>>I'd love to see someone like Andrew Vachss's take on these books.
>
>Hm. It's a thought...
Did anyone ever read Vachss's Batman books? I like his thrillers
enough to be intrigued, but dislike comic novelizations enough to need
a good reccomendation before taking the leap.
He's also one of the few people that can get me to watch Oprah. He's a
great speaker, very intense.
James C. Ellis
>
> James C. Ellis said:
>
> >> Yes. This is true. Now explain how the law "protected" her by
> >> killing her lover and blighting her future.
> >
> > Haven't I heard you argue in favour of capital punishment as a
> >deterrence?
>
> Oh yeah, gotta stamp out that nasty LOVE ...
Nice selective snipping, Jordan. Try;
* Oh yeah, gotta stamp out that nasty PAEDOPHILIA ...
(You also snipped the portion where I admitted to hyperbole; I am not a
particular fan of capital punishment... Did you even bother to _read_
what I wrote?)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto
But at least you took a moment to _think_ about it, before dumping the
idea out of hand.
Endy
and animals and getting paid quite handsomely to do it. Midlife crisis it's
usually called. Of course all of this is just IMHO.
Steve Parker <spar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ia558s8dl3dhue4rd...@4ax.com...
> I just read two Xanth books (of a trilogy) and all I can say
> is..yuck....brrrrr. Let me be clear: I can enjoy Chalker, despite
> his...odd...ideas about how men and women interrelate (I know *I've*
> never had a fantasy about turning a woman into a big breasted,
> half-animal sex-zombie). I've even been known to read a Gor novel or
> two, but these two books are just bent.
>
> I read _Vale of the Vole_ and _Heaven Cent_, which, along with _Man
> from Mundania_ make a trilogy.:
>
> In _VotV_, a kid of about 14 or so named Esk has a demoness sexual
> predator after him. He's not able to handle a millennia old woman
> trying to seduce him so he goes to Magician Humphrey's castle to find
> out how to deal with her. He meets Chex, a winged centauress and
> Volney a burrowing vole. They're off to see the wizard as well. Chex
> can't fly, despite her wings and Volney's valley and people are being
> ravaged by demons. They get into the magician's castle, going through
> the obligatory puzzles and find the magician's missing. They run to
> Castle Roogna and tell King Dor that A) the Magician's gone and B)
> Demons are running amok, polluting one of the two major waterways in
> Xanth and are killing his subjects. Dor says "How 'bout dat" and an
> insanely irritating bit of idiot plotting ignores them. On their own,
> the three have mini adventures as they try to assemble an army to
> protect Volney's Vale. Esk meets Bria a brass humanoid woman who tries
> to seduce him to get half Esk's soul. The armies assembled, they go to
> Volney's Vale. There's a long creepy scene as the demoness tries to
> get into Esk's pants. It's played partly for laughs. It's *not* funny.
> Eventually, the good guys win and the demons leave.
-snip-
J. B. Moreno
> "J. B. Moreno" wrote:
>
> > Personally I think it's all part of Heinlein's (written) attitude
> > towards sex -- basically it's a bodily interaction that is normally
> > pleasurable. Rape is "wrong" not because the other person was
> > unwilling, but because it damages their psyche (and sometimes body).
> > Friday, through culture and training, was pretty much immune to dama
>
> I've never gotten the impression that that was his written attitude,
> so to speak.
>
> As I recall (it's been some years), TMiaHM has a riot begins in
> earnest when a woman is raped by some of the guards of the prison colony
> and everyone in the region responds with violence. I believe the man and
> his pals were turned over to the women in the crowd and suffered a long,
> very painful death. I believe Manny's mental "explaination" are much
-snip-
> Given the qualities with which Heinlein imbues most Loonies (male
> and, I've always felt, especially female), they're too tough to take
> particular psychological damage from the act. But forcing sex on a woman
> that they don't want ... that's the stuff that dead bodies are made of.
Women are sacred to Loonies -- being excessively rude to one could get
you killed. So, on one hand, they are able to cope with it, but on the
other, doing it is liable to get a guy dumped out the nearest airlock
equivalent.
And I guess this is also part of his general written attitude (although
not necessarily to this extreme). So maybe I'm wrong.
--
John B. Moreno
Brenda
William Davis wrote:
> co...@aol.com (Coyu) wrote:
>
> >Steve Parker wrote:
> >
> >>I'd love to see someone like Andrew Vachss's take on these books.
> >
> >Hm. It's a thought...
>
> Did anyone ever read Vachss's Batman books? I like his thrillers
> enough to be intrigued, but dislike comic novelizations enough to need
> a good reccomendation before taking the leap.
>
I did -- the first one, about child abuse. I don't like comic
novelizations either. This one did not change my mind.
Possibly it was a good novel, but it wasn't a good Batman story.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD, from Tor Books
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
how many stories does an author have to write involving a younger
(under 18?) person having sex with an older person (over 18?)
before we, the reader, can assuredly conclude that these views
are truly those of the author and that he advocates them? Once?
Twice? 100 times?
I'm also curious how many times an author can write an evil
character doing evil things, win or lose, before we can be
confident that the author himself is evil.
Personally, I think an author should be able to write anything
they like with characters exhibiting any philosophy they like as
many times as they like without having to have that philosophy
branded as the author's (and we're talking fiction here). At
most, it would be fair to critcize the author for being in some
way "irresponsible" for using their voice to espouse something
that was not morally acceptable in your view. But it is not fair
to critcize them as if they actually HELD that philosophy.
But that's just my opinion.
Bruce
Robotech_Master
home) a rather extensive Piers collection. I kind of outgrew his
books, though...the first last straw was the utterly weird final book
of the Proton/Phaze 7-book series. The second last straw was the
author's note of _Firefly_ in which he says, if I'm not paraphrasing
him wrong, "It shouldn't be such a bad thing to have sex with a little
kid, if the little kid _wants_ it."
--
Chris Meadows aka | Co-moderator, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
Robotech_Master | Homepage: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/>
robo...@eyrie.org | PGP: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/rm.key.txt>
robo...@jurai.net | ICQ UIN: 5477383
Nancy Lebovitz
Danny Sichel <eds...@umoncton.ca> wrote:
>Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>>> For someone wanting sample the good Anthony stuff, I'd recommend _A
>>> Spell for Chameleon_ (the first Xanth book), _On A Pale Horse_ (the
>>> first Incarnations of Immortality book), the first Proton/Phaze
>>> book...and by now a pattern should be starting to suggest itself.
>
>> work.
>
>dentist?
Yes, and I rather liked it.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
October '99 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Elisabeth Carey
Just crackers, I think. I mean, they'd still be very much like
communion wafers, but that resemblence wouldn't likely be their most
obvious characteristic.
Lis Carey
Steve Parker
wrote:
>I used to have (still do have, actually, in boxes under my bed at
>home) a rather extensive Piers collection. I kind of outgrew his
>books, though...the first last straw was the utterly weird final book
>of the Proton/Phaze 7-book series. The second last straw was the
>author's note of _Firefly_ in which he says, if I'm not paraphrasing
>him wrong, "It shouldn't be such a bad thing to have sex with a little
>kid, if the little kid _wants_ it."
Am I misremembering one of the most recent _Callahan's_ books by
Spider Robinson where one of the regulars is suddenly gay and tells
his backstory which involves him (the kid) seducing his uncle,and then
telling, thus getting the uncle thrown into prison? I'm *almost*
certain it was in a _Callahan_ book.
Steve
--
Hugo-Reviews Page (with cover scans) at
http://www.mindspring.com/~sparker9/home2.html
Jordan S. Bassior
in the relationship, it's simply "love".
We hear a lot about people who are convicted of child molestation. Has it ever
occurred to you that there are probably a lot of relationships that start out
"illegal" but turn into marriages, or simply end with no hard feelings on
either side? These people are never accused of anything; they are also the
least likely to behave in a predatory or complusive manner.
Are we really serving the younger person's interest in such a relationship by
sending his or her lover to prison?
Coyu
[on Andrew Vachss]
>He's also one of the few people that can get me to watch Oprah. He's a
>great speaker, very intense.
Yes - but I expect he'd make the good netizens of rasfw uncomfortable.
He makes me look kind of mellow in argument. And he checks up on
people - the real thing, not just Deja.com.
ObSF: _Lost Boys_, the Card book.
--
Could it be that the AOL Usenet glitch is over? But sigh,
now I'm not getting e-mail.