R.B. Lemberg's Blog, page 36
March 21, 2012
March 20, 2012
A Single Copper Coin
When I was eight (I think), I read a folklore collection that included a Central Asian folktale that I want to share with you. Since I was only eight, I no longer remember the name of the folktale, or the specific collection from whence it came (I do vividly remember the illustrations, but it is not helpful, I know).
The story went like this: two friends traveled together to a market to sell their goods. One baked potatoes, and the other made a heap of flatbreads. Since the friends were hard-working, they arrived at the marketplace early. There was nobody there yet; no buyers, and no other sellers, and both of these worthies were getting quite hungry. So the potato friend says to his buddy, "How much for one flatbread?" And the reply is, "One copper coin." "How lucky," the potato friend replies, "I just happen to have a coin with me!" And so the flatbread is purchased and eaten.
Now the flatbread friend is getting ravenously hungry, so he asks, "How much for a potato?" And the answer is, "One copper coin." And so they trade with one another, paying each other fairly, until all the potatoes and flatbreads are all sold. But between them they have earned only a single copper coin.
I think it was supposed to be a lesson in economics.
I often ponder on this tale. What if they're trading… not edibles, but say… say, little objects of art nobody else has ever wanted. And there are two friends, say, and only a single copper coin between them. So one creates a little object of art that she knows her friend would like. She is paid a coin. Then the other creates a little object of art and sells it to the first. For a coin, of course. There's only one coin between them, but now there are two little objects of art in the world. They trade like this for a bit, and here comes the third, who has no money whatsoever but creates another little object to sell for the same copper coin. Fourth, fifth have no coins but bring a carpet to sit. The sixth brings in another coin. Seventh arrives; she looks at the goings-on and is moved to create something strange and glorious, which she is happy to sell for a coin. The first buys the glorious thing for a coin and creates another one in response. People are starting to gather around; someone tossed in a coin. Someone else joined in.
And so it goes. They are still poor – but now they have a village.
Originally published at RoseLemberg.net. You can comment here or there.
March 18, 2012
Wikipedia, anyone?
March 8, 2012
Linguistic (and Historical) Geekery of the day
A Shirt!!! (I can also explain what it is, and the other marginal glosses/doodles, if you are interested. :)
UPDATE: so, an explanation of the shirt: the Hebrew text deals with mystical (pre-Kabbalistic, but likely in a similar vein) interpretations of services in the Temple. The square glosses to the left and bottom of the manuscript each give the name of one of the twelve tribes and a precious stone that corresponds to that tribe, indicating the Hoshen of the ha-Kohen ha-Gadol, the Great Priest. The shirt I take to be one of the special vestments of the Great Priest, most likely the efod, a vest with two k'tephot (patches) on the shoulders - which you can see illustrated; each of the k'tephot bore an onyx stone with inscriptions of the names of the twelve tribes. The thing to the right of the shirt I take to be the mitznefet (turban), which was flat, though it could also be the avnet (sash). (ETA: looking at this again, the avnet is most likely drawn at the bottom of the shirt, and the rectangular thing to the right is indeed the mitznefet).
Isn't this cool?
Queer Speculative Poetry recommendations
As you may know, I am putting together a Queer chapbook with work from Stone Telling (including the queer issue) to launch at Wiscon. One of the contributors to Stone Telling 7 and the queer chapbook, Dominik Parisien, is asking:
Just out of curiosity, have you considered including a brief "Recommended Reading" section in the chapbook regarding queer poems that have appeared in other magazines? This could expose readers to other great queer poems they might not otherwise discover.
This is a GREAT idea. To that end, I would appreciate it if you could please help me with specific titles of queer speculative/sff work. I already know about the queer work of Sonya Taaffe, Jeannelle Ferreira, Adrienne J. Odasso, and Catherynne M. Valente (including work not reprinted in the Moment of Change, but would appreciate pointers to anything else, especially but not limited to work that appeared in 2011-2012.
(Sorry I wasn't clear before, but really looking for spec rather than literary, here).
Originally published at RoseLemberg.net. You can comment here or there.
March 6, 2012
Antonelli, etc
![[info]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380923608i/3292608.gif)
fantasyecho
) posts a response which is well worth reading.People are denied citizenship, denied humanity, and denied basic respect, based on their ethnicity, and somehow, Nisi is taking herself "way too seriously" because you don't understand why the ethnic identity movement exists? A movement which has spread to encompass other forms of identity, beyond ethnicity?
What, then, qualifies you to run on a platform that touts "diversity", when you clearly don't understand the concept? What qualifies you to tell a woman of colour, who will face dehumanization on a more regular basis than you, or your dogs, ever will, how she should approach the issue?
A dignified objection raised by Nisi gets trash from 'diversity' SFWA candidate
ETA: some people objected to say that he didn't really call Nisi's words 'politically correct bullshit." Well, here's what he actually said: "I have no damn idea what your problem is. If I offended some esoteric aspect of political correctness, I don't care. [...] What is the "ethnic identity movement"? If this some way of saying your genes are more important than your citizenship, then it's bullshit."
O-K.
Nisi's entry here: "Platform Response"
Jim Hines wrote about this here: "Six SFWA Candidates and One Facepalm"
Well, Brenta Blevins came in and asked:
Hi, Lou, I'm a new Active SFWA member, and I'm curious what you mean about your one word "diversity" statement. I'm not sure what you mean by that statement, and since it's your stated reason for running, I'd like clarification going into the election. Thanks for the reply.To which Lou Antonelli responded:
My background is different than most SFWA members. I live in a small town in Texas and go to a Southern Baptist Church. I write s-f and fantasy as a sideline and I'm really just a normal middle class traditional guy.
So yes, diversity = "normal middle class white traditional Christian guy." As opposed to, for example, Nisi, who, for example, co-authored "Writing the Other" and was a guest of honor at Wiscon last year.
Umm. O-Kay.
Well, I have me a shiny new active membership. Guess who gets my vote.
Summary of the situation by the illustrious Kate Beaton.
CASTING CALL! For an audio poem/story thing!
cafenowhere
's "we come together we fall apart" is the long epic fantasy/horror poem that will appear in the seventh (Queer) issue of Stone Telling. I thought it would be incredibly epic to have Lisa's poem recorded in six voices and mixed. What we need is five more voices, male and female, who would be able to record their segments as an mp3 using, for example, Audacity. You would need a computer and desirably a microphone to be able to do this, though most computers have a built-in microphone. (I will help with instructions, etc). Please respond in the comments below if you are interested and able to do the recording; we would need this to happen soon, as in about a week or a bit more.-----------------------------------------------
Notes on the roles from Lisa:
The oldest brother has the deepest/strongest voice; the youngest, the lightest. Ditto the sisters' registers.Abe – first brother; a hard worker who's happiest with physical labor, Abe's impulsive nature and susceptibility to feminine wiles get him in trouble, as does his tendency to run away from problems. (naturally this will be
time_shark
)Micah – second brother; with a cool demeanor that makes him a good observer, Micah doesn't shy from physical labor, but he excels at presentation and negotiation—in business and in life.
Connor – third brother; though he is scorned by his brothers as "unnatural", Connor's patience and gentle good nature make him popular with children and much loved by his wife.
Marguerite – first sister, married Micah; proud and ruthlessly practical, "Saint Marguerite" is dedicated to the family farm; she shears sheep and budgets with equal aplomb, but has a weakness for beauty.
Adelita – second sister, married Abe; highly sexual and vain about her conquests, she's the witchy genius who dyes the farm's wool and nearly destroys the family.
Camille – third sister, married Connor; young and trusting, Camille doesn't understand the deals her family has made; she herds the flock with songs.
March 5, 2012
Feminist SF/F: on Feminist Characters
During #FeministSF twitter chat yesterday, a question was floated about what kind of women we want to see more often in speculative fiction, and what kinds of characters are feminist. Keri@Feministfantasy.com called for strong female characters: independent women who save themselves and make their own choices, and are not defined by men. This is, I think, the popular notion of what a feminist heroine should be like.
A discussion followed, and I said many things, and some people said I should write up my thoughts as an entry.* Here goes.
In the twitter chat, I said:
For me, a feminist work showcases a variety of women, not necessarily a "typical" strong female character. I feel that by limiting feminist expression to strong female characters only, we are shortchanging ourselves. If male characters are allowed to be strong, weak, broken, insane, anti-heroes – why can't we have a range of female characters likewise? I think that writing women in a non-stereotyping way, as people with desires, weaknesses, strengths – is feminist.
I want portrayals of women that are as vivid and varied as portrayals of men.
Limiting the range of female characters to the kickass-heroine, we are saying that only one type of woman is worthy of story.
I say, that approach is helpful in a short run, but harmful in the long run.
Let me unpack.
The Warrior Woman is a powerful archetype. We are still fighing very simple battles. We live in a world where all-male Best-of anthologies are published, where women's books are reviewed less than books by men, where all-men panels happen – heck, we live in a world where all-male groups are empowered to decide on a woman's rights to her own body. Against these, the Warrior Woman stands tall. She is powerful and unafraid of power. She does not complain , does not bend, does not hesitate. She may grieve, but her grief will never put her in a corner. She towers above the cowing figures of those who oppress us. She lends us strength. She is an Example of how we want to be, powerful and free and unafraid. She is an archetype, a token, and we need her – we need her in life and we need her in books and movies. She empowers us. There is not enough of her, yet.
But in a way, she also undermines us.
A subtype of the Warrior Woman is the Professional. She is a scientist, a doctor, an astronaut. She is fearless, competent, and wise. She is usually alone, surrounded by male colleagues who are sometimes goofy, immature, undersocialized, or just plain wrong. But never the Professional. She is never immature, never undersocialized, never abrupt, never wrong, never makes horrible mistakes with friends. She must be polite and rational and calm. She must never, ever be impolite or offensive, because women are so often demonized and underrepresented and barred from professions for various reasons (including ascribed overemotionality) that the Professional must always guard against it, always present a flawless Example. She is always, always a Token.
In classic theories of gender and language, women are said to be more polite because women are disempowered. Robin Lakoff (1975) theorized that lack of power is a key factor in constructing women's discourse; due to women's subordinate position in society relative to men, women would strive to minimize any threat to the people in power (men), and would therefore come across as more polite.
"Men are power brokers in most speech communities, while women are subordinate. Men can dominate the talking time, interrupt, and use a narrower range of speech variants because they don't need to worry about pleasing their interlocutors, especially when the addressee is a woman. Women by contrast need to be supportive and non-aggressive and must be linguistically flexible in order to survive in societies in which they are not in control" (Eckert and McGonnell-Ginet 1998, 491)
This notion of power and powerlessness is very, very basic. As sociolinguists, we've moved quite a ways from it, and we know now that these generalizations about women and power in discourse are not borne out by the data. The data are, in fact, extremely diverse. (c.f. the work of Cameron and Mills in particular). Still, this notion of women as powerless, however inaccurate or incomplete, "provides a powerful symbolic meaning" (Cameron 2000, 333) that affects both people's behavior and societal expectations.
What I am trying to say is, with the Warrior Woman (and her subtype, the Professional) always and only our Story, we as women act out our powerlessness – our desire to be invincible and able to ordain our own fate (Warrior Woman), and our desire to be Impeccably Competent in order to be Allowed to Exercise our Chosen Professions.
I want women to dream their literary heroines from a position of strength. Just as we know by now (I hope) that women are not always polite, so we should be able to have heroines who do not always represent our oppression. The way to get there, I think, is through multiple, intersectional, and diverse (yet not stereotyped or cartoonish) portrayals of women. I want women to be able to be Neurotic Geniuses. I want the Amazing Inventor with bad hair and mismatched socks who yells sometimes and makes her friends upset, and sometimes forgets to eat, and sometimes forgets to do laundry. I want to read about the Magician who forgets to check her email and gets embroiled in a political struggle at her University, which she loses ungraciously. I want to read about Neurotic Creative Professionals – architects, writers, film directors, music composers – who, in throws of creativity, can be quite upsetting to be around. I want to read about a brilliant woman scientist who is also a miserable drunk. I want to read about the person in a wheelchair who loves her work, but who takes her disability really hard. I want to read about women who are child-free by choice, and women who are mothers. I want to read about mothers who decided to stay at home, and mothers who work. I want to read about women who are fat and not, women who struggle with weight and women who do not. I want to read about asexual women, bisexual women, trans women (and trans men!), I want to read about people who are genderqueer and questioning. I want to read about menopausal women. I want to read about a heroine who is eighty two. I want to read about women who are mentally ill. I want to read a book with a feminist anti-hero. I want to read about kinky women, I want to read about dominant women and submissive women. And note, I haven't even touched upon the questions of racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity!
One side effect of writing a range of women is that we might not be comfortable with all of those characters, all of those women, all of those people. In real life, unless you are extremely holy, you won't be comfortable with all the people you know. But what we often do in genre is allow men to be uncomfortable and difficult, but erase the women who are less than warm and fuzzy-making.
What I am saying is simple. As I see it, limiting women's creativity to the Warrior archetype is limiting us in difficult ways that are ultimately bad for us, because this perpetuates our oppression. There are all kinds of men in speculative literature. There are NOT all kinds of women in speculative literature. There should be all kinds of women in speculative literature. Having all kinds of women who are human and complex will empower us to be ourselves, and comfortable in our skins. It is not easy, but I think we can get there.
——–
* Additional and very important points were raised by Ekaterina Sedia (@esedia) and Alex Dally MacFarlane (@foxtailedgirl) among others; I encourage you to check out #FeministSF.
Originally published at RoseLemberg.net. You can comment here or there.
March 3, 2012
Auction
However, I promised to have the drive/auction there until tomorrow night.... Not sure what to do, now.... Please advise - should I stop the drive and the auction at once? I haven't ever been in this situation...
