tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post333897134103462481..comments2024-03-03T13:55:46.243-08:00Comments on Ambling Along the Aqueduct: Those Eyeball-rolling MomentsTimmi Duchamphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673465487533328661noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-12250109855312967482008-10-28T07:44:00.000-07:002008-10-28T07:44:00.000-07:00I won't pretend I don't have a vested interest in ...I won't pretend I don't have a vested interest in this review -- anytime a reviewer showers my work with praise, I am far too happy to quibble too much, even though I immediately reacted to his comments on feminism (and knew you would do so, too, Timmi). <BR/><BR/>But here's a real upside: Lyndon Perry is not my target reader and yet he both liked the stories and got what was going on in them. To me that means that I can write stories that are in conversation with feminist SF -- not to mention feminism in general, my own understanding of history (I just read your interesting post on history and events, too, Timmi), the political landscape in which I was raised and so on -- and still connect with a reader who unaware or uninterested in those things. <BR/>To me, that's important, because one of the reasons I consider fiction to be important (possibly more important than criticism, to hark back to the beginnings of a discussion at WisCon, which Josh will remember), is that the best of it provides the reader with truth and understanding of the world on a deep, often unconscious level. My own understanding of the world has been heavily shaped by the fiction I've read, and that fiction has led me down some paths I would not otherwise have found. <BR/><BR/>So if my feminist stories -- and I'm too much shaped by feminism to write stories that don't at least have something feminist about them -- can be read and appreciated by those who do not think in those terms, some of that deeper understanding is going to find a home in the reader's unconscious. To me, that's how change comes. <BR/><BR/>I'm still fascinated an observation in Chip Delany's <I>Empire Star</I>, where he says something about criminals and artists being the ones capable of complex thinking leading to change (I am not going to go digging through my books to find that one at the moment to get the exact line). I believe literature that challenges our preconceptions leads to change. So I very much want to be read by people who don't think in terms of feminism, as well as by those who do.Nancy Jane Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030267999537291250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-74840506913505584462008-10-27T22:30:00.000-07:002008-10-27T22:30:00.000-07:00Shivering shades of Althusser! Is this the next st...Shivering shades of Althusser! Is this the next stage in the postmodern media penetration of our lives? You're right, A White Bear's post is brilliant-- thanks for the link. To give a further sense of what she's saying here, let me quote this bit:<BR/><BR/>"It worries me that my students aren’t even narcissistic in their responses. I know they are personally moved by literature because they tell me after class, face-to-face, but before they know how to do analytical work with literature, they displace evaluation onto what they imagine would be a widespread market response. It reminds me of the way the media discusses presidential candidates, not analytically, and not through actual editorial commentary, but by obsessing about what is weird or not-weird about each, and speculating about how those spiky weird bits those candidates have might irritate the very sensitive skin of the great allergy-ridden Public, who likes everything to taste like yesterday’s dinner, but come in a new box. Who is this Public the media imagines? Or have they made us into that Public by insisting that we imagine the Public as everyone except ourselves, who don’t matter in comparison?"<BR/><BR/>The answer to that last question is: Of course! That's what "hailing" (aka "interpellation") does. & of course that's what the constant bombardment of images of what women are "supposed" to look like does to women: makes them constantly worry about what Everyone (which might as well be "the Public") thinks about the way they look. But what AWB's students are doing seems to be taking the process even further. Now they can't discuss a text without reference to what they think the "market response" is. And you know, I think you're right, that's what was going on in this review. Maybe the reviewer thinks it's the reviewer's task to to internalize whatever s/he thinks the "market response" is & represent it to the review's readers?<BR/><BR/>Jeesh. I tell ya, Josh, We're in a house of mirrors. If you ever find the door, let me know.Timmi Duchamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673465487533328661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-23539160197767684072008-10-27T19:35:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:35:00.000-07:00You know what that "might unnecessarily marginaliz...You know what that "might unnecessarily marginalize these stories away" reminds me of? The handsome and brilliant A White Bear, observing of her undergrads that <A HREF="http://istherenosininit.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/why-am-i-doing-this/" REL="nofollow">they feel that the only way one responds to art is <I>not even as a self-interested consumer</I>, but as a television studio executive</A>. The reviewer here is not so much signaling his own discomfort with the "feminist" appellation (he's not sufficiently in touch with his own feelings to say whether or not he's personally uneasy about it) but imagining it in the context of "consensus and marketability." Like AWB's students, he imagines that the stories would lack "relatability" thanks to that "crazy" categorization.Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914730499199048197noreply@blogger.com