Back to our roots: BOOK OF THE DEAD.

I think we a lot of writing and a lot of collections, we've really come far. I think a lot of the reason why I didn't like sci-fi growing up (fantasy is another story) is because the sci-fi was so heavily male, so much centered on the "conquering an alien race, taking hot alien wife" sort of trope. It was about the half-naked alien babes and submitting to the white travlers of space. It was horribly disappointing to read.

I read a lot of kid books (and still do) because I've seen more diversity in books aimed towards kids. They have wonderful, complicated amazing storylines and there isn't this overhang of "must marry/kids/conquer/rape" sort of trope going on. There are people that have that open-handness that kids can have without someone dictating their thoughts and at the same time, showing what people are capable of. An author I had the fortune of meeting told me that they only difference between books aimed at kids and those at adults are the age of the protagonist.

I think that nowadays there are many examples of how wide the world can reach (even if it is still incredibly narrow) and as long as there is that one straight-laced, narrow image, there is going to be someone that goes "but what if it was /this/ way" and another sub-genre is born or a rewriting of the original.

(sorry for the long-winded, convoluted reply)

I was introduced to James Schmitz when I was a kid, and had no idea he wasn't "recent" (he was Golden/Silver Age) because he specifically understood that the whole "conquering an alien race, taking hot alien wife" was a trope, and an overused one at that. For instance, one of his protagonists is a little old herbwife granny who actually turns out to be an interstellar researcher, specifically because no one thinks to look at a little old herbwife granny, and another one of his books is specifically setting up every single trope of his day and then twisting them.

The annoying thing is that he did all this, and then it took another couple of decades before the field followed suit. He really was a writer ahead of his time.

Whenever I see a less than stellar review of something, I'm tempted to find it. It's kinda like being dared.

*lol*

We'll see if I can find it at the library anyway.

I have a fair sized library, as I buy often and very rarely get rid of any except through the time-honoured tradition of lending books to someone and then forgetting where they've gone. This is normally a good thing, however the only down-side is that there are books there that I like and haven't reread in 5-10 years. I've grown up an awful lot and my world-view has expanded massively over that time (and have no doubt that I will be saying the same 10 years on) and I've come to learn, bit by bit, that there are things which aren't straight, white and male and there are some things which are horribly problematic. I'm a work in progress, but a lot further on than I used to be.

However, there's been more than one occasion where I've loaned a book that I haven't read in 10 years to a friend with an enthusiastic recommendation, only for them to come back with a, "Why did you recommend this to me again?" I reread it to find out what the problem is only to discover a mass of issues that my sheltered little 19 year old brain didn't even recognise. And then there's shame.

That's basically a long and convoluted way of saying, "I'm sorry that your book disappointed you and I'm pleased that the world has (even slightly) higher standards nowadays."

PJW

I have a similar problem, in that I have been trying to reread some of my old favourites, and there are entire shelves on my bookcase opening up* because I find on rereading the series/author/book that I can't cope with the SWM-ness of it any more. As a result, I'm now actively balancing out the diversity of my bookcases, though slowly, as I don't get as much time to read as I used to and some of the new stuff is on Kindle.

H
*I say opening up, I mean the doubleshelving is starting to fade a little. Actual empty bookcase space is still a bit unlikely.

I am wondering what your response/thought process would be to a cis/het/white/dude author (ie: me) writing an anti-zombie zombie story. I frigging *loathe* the zombie motif, and your Feed trilogy and the fairly incidental zombie action of the books I edit is about all the exposure I've had because I simply Do Not Want.

I couldn't even get into World War Z because it was insipid, cliche'd, and boring.

ALL HAIL THE BLOODPIT UNENDING.

I'm curious what you mean by an anti-zombie zombie story?

That's disappointing. :( And a very good point about the "this is where we started" thing. We've got a ways to go yet, but we've come a ways too. Your Newsflesh series is the most popular contemporary zombie anything I've read about in horror circles apart from the "Walking Dead" series--just going on my personal experience here, which won't reflect everyone else's, but that's amazing. I'm encouraged by that.

I was fascinated by this review of Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because it managed to encapsulate everything that leaves me feeling weird about having once adored Heinlein: http://thebooksmugglers.com/2014/03/joint-review-the-moon-is-a-harsh-mistress-by-robert-a-heinlein.html (And I did. Not particularly Stranger in a Strange Land, at least not much after I was eleven or so, and tMiaHM was never a fave either, but... I read both Starship Troopers and Friday kind of ridiculous numbers of times, and read almost everything he wrote, even the later ones that really blew goats. I mean, Friday, fer crying out loud. I was warped for life.) And it does a pretty good job of pulling out the reasons I liked it. I mean, for a male author of the time, his stuff was pretty good. Which is praising with faint damns.

Nowadays, I just can't recommend them except for historical interest.

I read the review, and the "about the authors" sections. I think the historical context has quite a bit to say here.

Heinlein published TMiaHM in 1966, so he probably started it about 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had just recently been passed, while the Race Riots kicked into high gear midway through the writing (Watts, 1965). The Pill had just been introduced a few years before (1960) and the Sexual Revolution was likewise in its infancy. Interracial marriages were still against the law in some states, and certain sexual acts were likewise illegal (even between married partners in the privacy of their own home).

The Book Smugglers look to both be under 30. One says she is just out of college grad, the other is less specific but has a photo indicating a somewhat similar age. If we assume 30 for both, and assume that one gets a pretty good idea of societal values by age 10, that suggests a "Baseline" of 1994 societal values for the Smugglers. Ideas that were revolutionary in 1964-66 were often seen as commonplace (or even behind the times) 30-40 years later.

Let's also look at some general attitudes.

Thea loved the movie version of STARSHIP TROOPERS (which was her first contact with ST) and found the book version dry and boring (all that political exposition, similar to TMiaHM). On the "about" page she mentions that "With movies, I’m a sucker for true horror, anything that involves multiple explosions, and cheap humor." Well, yes, the movie version of ST was filled with multiple explosions. It was sort of like a video game in that regard. That sort of value is rather more common in those born in the 90s than it is for those born in the 50s (like me). For me, the political theory of both ST and TMiaHM were VERY interesting at the time. Movies that are all about the explosions are the ones I find boring. For me, IDEAS hold my attention much more than MINDLESS VIOLENCE.

Ana recognizes this difference in outlook. She notes that "2) I will always approach any book from a perspective that attempts to examine topics that are important to me as a reader and as a reviewer but which might be ultimately unrelated to what makes the book `important.'

I will certainly agree that there were quite a number of time when Heinlein was a shameless Male Chauvanist Pig. And his attitude towards women grew worse and worse in his later years. But for me, reading the book in 1966, the amount of groundbreaking good material was far more important that the bad gender- and cultural-stereotypes that were still present. For someone reading the book 50 years later, the groundbreaking material may be seen as old hat while we are much more sensitized these days to how bad the stereotypes are. So the good is seen as much less important today while the bad is seen as more important today.

There are also market forces to consider. If the overwhelming percentage of SF readers were male back in 1966 (maybe 80%?), writing a story about a male protagonist who winds up with a beautiful female partner makes a lot of financial sense, All those teenage-boy nerds could feel there was some hope. These days the male-female ratio of readers of SF is a lot closer to being balanced - and there are likewise a lot more female protagonists these days than there were in 1966.

So I think that Seanan's review of BOOK OF THE DEAD might serve very well as a model for reviews of Heinlein. It was how a bunch of things got started. The actual treatment wasn't the best by todays standards, but it may well have inspired some later authors to (a) work in those ideas at all, and (b) to do it better.

I think the excessive rapiness may be a side effect of the anthology springing from the early splatterpunk movement - the authors may have felt they were "pushing the boundaries" and "being realistic", inadvertently revealing the laziness of thinking behind this by being assembled together under one banner. (Still, that the editors don't seem to have thought this worth noticing says something in itself.)

I've just checked and discovered that the follow-up anthology at least includes some female authors - six (possibly seven?) out of nineteen stories - so may be worth a look, especially in light of your comments in the final paragraph.

I think that may be pretty close to the mark. The subject matter / delivery mechanism was the stuff that was new/edgy/interesting, and kind of the focus of the anthology, and so the characters were notably whitebread through the whole book. Also the old white guy's club that wrote it is, as a class, traditionally pretty insulated from social trends like including a lot more diversity in the cast of characters, especially back when it was written, and this trend lacked the momentum it's picked up since.

At my birthday party this past weekend I found myself in a conversation with several writers talking about whether or not one of them should have one of her characters raped. None of them were able to make the "When are you going to rape her" panel at FogCon, but I found the panel being mostly recreated. The point is still valid: why is rape the only horrible thing writers can think of to do to female characters? I think the original writer with the question is going to have her female character tortured horribly with great pain, and the male character will get raped.