galacticjourney

Here's a question I've gotten more than once: what is the point in spotlighting woman writers? Shouldn't I simply point out the good stories as I find them, and if they happen to be written by women, bully for them? Why should I create an artificial distinction?

Those are actually fine questions, about which I've given much thought. I make no claims to being an expert, or even someone whose opinion should matter much to you. All I have is my taste, my gut and (lucky for me) my own column in which to voice my opinions. So take my words as strictly my viewpoint.

We live in a particular kind of world. Men are the default: the default heroes, the default writers, even the default pronoun. Open a history book, and it will be filled with the names of great men. Women are a seeming afterthought. You may not even have thought twice about it. It seems "natural" that movies should star men, that books should star men, that men should be the generals, the presidents.

But, there is a change a brewing. Black men universally won the right to vote in 1865. Women secure duniversal suffrage in 1920, fully three generations after the least privileged men. The gap is narrowing. This year, a Black man became skipper of a U.S. Naval vessel. 1961 also marks the year a woman became a shipboard U.S. Naval officer for the first time. Women are now just one generation behind the least advantaged of the men. Someday, we may be on a level playing field, all races of men and women.

Science fiction is supposed to be forward-looking, yet socially it seems stuck in the present, or even the past. One almost never reads about woman starship captains or woman presidents or woman...well... anything. I don't think this is the result of deliberate collusion by the science fiction writing community. It's just that society is the air we breathe. We are unconsciously bound by its rules and traditions. Unless something shakes up our viewpoints, we'll stick in our ruts and continue to accept this male-dominated paradigm as the natural order of things.

So when I spot something unusual that I think should be universal, I note it. I encourage it. I enjoy it.

Without further ado, part #3 of my encyclopedic catalog of the woman writers active as of this year of 1961:

(see the rest at Galactic Journey!)

Happy birthday to me! I entered my fifth decade of life yesterday; I hope middle age will be kind to me.

This month's F&SF certainly has been. I have an interesting mix of stories about which to relate.

It has often been said that, to be a good writer, one must be an avid reader. There is no better way to learn the tricks of the trade than to see how others have manipulated the printed word. I, myself, have been a writer for two decades, but I still often find some new technique that impresses me sufficiently to enter my repertoire.


Permission to republish graciously granted by Ida Rentoul Outhwaite

Something that struck me while reading Gordon Dickson's quite good modern fantasy, "The Amulet," was its focus on sensual descriptions. You always know the temperature and flavor of the air, the tactile qualities of a seat, the character of sound and light. It makes this a very feeling story, very visceral.

The following psi/space-travel story, by brand-newcomer Anne McCaffrey, The Woman in the Tower, is far more spare in its descriptions. The focus is on a series of telepathic conversations that presumably carry little sensual information. It is a story drawn almost in skeleton sparseness, and it makes sense in the context.

Seeing the two techniques in stark juxtaposition really drove home how important it is to focus (or choose not to focus) on the scenery. Frankly, when I write fiction, I am often afraid to lavish attention on the background or prosaic items for fear of boring my audience. Yet spending some extra time describing an item or sensation is the literary equivalent of conveying the focus of a character's attention. It happens in real life, so it should happen in a story, where appropriate.

So an oldish dog can learn new tricks!

Aside from all that, you probably want to know more about the stories, themselves. Well, The Amulet has witches and all the paraphernalia associated with them. It's a dark story with a dark viewpoint character, about as different from The Man in the Mailbag (April 1959 Galaxy) as you can get. Gordy's got some range.

McCaffrey's tale features a future in which a few supremely powerful telepaths with the ability to teleport matter have become the foundation for an interstellar transportation system. It is a first contact story in several ways, and it is also a love story. I found it very good though perhaps with a bit of the rough-hewn quality one associates with new writers. I hope we see more of Anne in the future.

Speaking of unusual writing styles, Asimov has a piece of fiction in the issue in addition to his science article. Unto the Fourth Generation is an interesting mood piece involving the evolution of a name's spelling and pronunciation over time. Perhaps the only "Jewish" piece I've seen Asimov write, it is a departure from his usual unadorned, functional technique. I liked it.

That's that for this installment, but there are still several more stories on which to report. And if you're an Asimov-o-phile, you'll like this column 'round the end of the month.

Stay tuned!

P.S. Some have inquired as to what happened to the March F&SF and how I got my hands on an early April release. The answer is simple--the author of this column pulled a "Charlie Gordon" (as opposed to a "David Gordon," which some would argue is worse). I actually managed to pick up both the March and April copies at the same time at the source, the latter being a pre-release proof. So entranced was I by the cover that I started reading and forgot that I needed to do March first.

Please forgive me, and if the order bothers you, I recommend swapping your left eye for your right, or perhaps reading upside down.





(Confused? Click here for an explanation as to what's really going on)